Sunday, February 14, 2016

Cardinal Ottaviani was a Cushingite like Pope John XXIII.Those who participated in the Council of Florence were Feeneyites -2


Vatican II: Concilium contra Papa Ratti

 – Part Two

     

Papa Ratti 2
We continue with a look at those subjects the treatment of which stand out as prime examples of a Concilium contra Papa Ratti [Part One]:

Ecumensim
“On the 6th day of January, on the Feast of the Epiphany of Jesus Christ, our Lord, in the year 1928,” Pope Pius XI promulgated his Encyclical on Religious Unity, Mortalium Animosinarguably the most important piece of papal magisterium of the last century on the topic of ecumenism.
The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio, footnotes this supremely important reaffirmation of immutable Catholic doctrine precisely zero times, and the reason is rather obvious:
The teaching expressed in Mortalium Animos, based as it is upon Scripture and Tradition, is a crystal clear condemnation of the ecumenical aims of the Second Vatican Council. In fact, it reads as if the Holy Father, Pius XI, had the specific activities of today’s Roman ecumenists in mind as he wrote.
Lionel: It would contradict Vatican Council II for Louie Verrecchio since he interprets the Council with Cushingism.The same Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism has the old ecclesiology. For Louie, Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).It becomes a break because he uses the Cushingism-premise.
There are those  who infer ( whether they know it or not) that they can physically see or personally know in the present times, people in Heaven, without the baptism of water.They are using the Cushingite premise.
With this premise they infer that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology on ecumenism.
______________________
For instance, the Holy Father states:
And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion … For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: “That they all may be one…. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,” with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. [Mortalium Animos]
Oh, how many times do our churchmen, including Pope Francis, misappropriate Our Blessed Lord’s prayer (as recorded in Gospel according to St. John, chapter 17) in support of their unbridled ecumenical aims!
Lionel: With Feeneyism there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the old ecclesiology based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So there would be no change in the Church's position on ecumenism for me.

For me Feeneyism says there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.Since humanly we cannot see or know any one in Heaven, saved without the baptism of water. We cannot see or meet any one in the present times, saved with the baptism of desire or blood or in  invincible ignorance and  without the baptism of water. No human being in the Church, in the past, could have seen or known or confirmed that there was someone in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. There could not be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the EENs.So Vatican Council II cannot in any way, contradict Feeneyite interpretation EENS and the old ecclesiology.
______________________________
Pope Pius XI continues:
For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. [ibid.]
This, my friends, is precisely the mindset of the disciples of Roncalli’s Council, who labor to encourage earthbound expressions of human cooperation under the guise of “Christian unity.”
In truth, as Pope Pius XI states with unassailable precision, there is but one way to unity:
The union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. [ibid.]
Lionel: This is how Vatican Council II is interpreted by me.It is in agreement with the old ecclesiology on ecumenism. Since I avoid the premise and inference used by Louie.
_______________________________
By contrast, how did the Council choose to proceed?
In answer to this question, I can perhaps do no better than to provide firsthand testimony from someone who was involved from the earliest days of the newly established Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, all the way to the Council’s conclusion and beyond:
“No one can tell us this is the way they did it last year…” – Cardinal Augustine Bea
Of even lesser concern still was the way Pope Pius XI “did it” back in 1928; with “it” meaning defend the Apostolic faith with “wondrous wisdom and heroic courage, to enlighten the minds and strengthen the wills of the shepherds of souls and of the faithful,” to quote Cardinal Ruffini yet again.
The work of the Council with respect to ecumenism would be “a completely new tradition” indeed.
Lionel: Yes it would be interpreted with Cushingism just as the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which  is based on the theology of Cushingism.It was new. It was an innovation. It was irrational. It was magisterial and it was heretical. It is being used also by Louie Verrecchio and other traditionalists. It is the interpretation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops, all Cushingites.
_____________________________
Unitatis Redintegratio fails to suggest even once that the goal of authentic ecumenism is the conversion of heretics and schismatics to the one true faith; instead it issues more than ten calls for “dialogue” in order to “prepared the way for cooperation between” Catholics and all manner of self-identified “Christians” in supposed service to the common good.
Pope Pius XI understood very well the grave dangers associated with such activities, and so he declared:
It is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies [those wherein Catholics join forces with the heretics and schismatics], nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. [ibid.]
Lionel: So we affirm the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS and there is nothing in Unitatis Redintigratio to contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. We cannot and do not know any one in 2016 saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church '(UR 3). For me UR 3 is a reference to a hypothetical case.Someone who would be saved with 'faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes  7, Lumen Gentium 14).
_______________________________
Today, with the Council’s winds in their sails, our churchmen do not hesitate to travel the world in order to take part in such interreligious services; in fact, all-too-often, it is the pope himself who leads the way.
As for what is at stake in the matter, Pope Pius XI left no room for doubt:
The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind. [ibid. NOTE: Here Pope Pius XI quotes Lactantius, a fourth century Christian apologist]
Lionel: And Louie Verrecchio says the baptism of desire must exclude the baptism of water and it is an exception to the dogma EENS. This is a contradiction of the statement of Pope Pius XI.
_______________________________
Did you get that?
Lionel:  I did and I have been repeating it for so long!
_______________________________
At stake here is nothing less serious than “the hope of life and salvation,” to which those outside the Church are “strangers.”
As for the Council’s treatment of ecumenism under the direction of Cardinal Bea whose secretariat, let us recall, was given a mandate from Pope John XIII to operate unconnected to any tradition?
It gave schismatics and heretics every reason to remain within their defective communities – outside of the fount of truth, the house of Faith, and the temple of God that is the Holy Catholic Church alone:
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion … These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation … For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [the communities of the schismatics and heretics] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Lionel: He was using Cushingism so there were known cases of salvation outside the Church for him.
However we have to assume that these cases he refers to are hypothetical for us . There are no personally known Protestants saved without Catholic Faith( AG 7, LG 14, Cantate Domini Council of Florence 1441 ) who are in Heaven in 2016.
________________
The question must be asked, if indeed the liturgical services and communities of the “brethren divided” are “means of salvation,” why should they depart from their comfortable confines in favor of the Catholic Church?
The answer: There is no reason beyond mere preference.
Lionel: I don't know of any Protestant whose liturgical services was a means of salvation outside the Catholic Church.
So why should I assume that a a theoretical case, a hypothetical case referred to in Vatican Council II is a de facto, known person, in 2016 ?
I will choose Feeneyism as a means of interpretation,  while Louie chooses Cushingism.
____________________
Cardinal Bea
If the Council is to be believed, membership in the Holy Catholic Church versus a protestant community is rather like the difference between traveling by boat or by raft – regardless of choice, either one will suffice in reaching the desired destination; salvation.
Lionel: An opinion.Speculation.Good will.
__________________________
To be clear: Be not fooled by the qualifier “which derive their efficacy…”
Lionel: He is still referring to a hypothetical case for me.
__________________________
The reality is that the liturgies and the communities of the “brethren divided” have no efficacy as liturgies and communities. It is for this reason that Pope Pius XI, a truly Holy Father indeed, expressed a longing for the day when:
Those who are separated from Us: if these humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. [ibid.]
May we live to see the day when Our Lord will grant us a faithful pope who loves the “brethren divided” enough to speak likewise.
Communism
“On the feast of St. Joseph, patron of the universal Church, on the 19th of March, 1937,” Pope Pius XI issued the Encyclical Divini Redemptoris in order to “expose once more in a brief synthesis the principles of atheistic Communism as they are manifested chiefly in bolshevism.”
Note well that the condemnation of Communism to follow was not an entirely new initiative, but rather an attempt to “once more” warn the faithful of its dangers.
Why reiterate this warning then?
As the Holy Father explains, it was necessary in order to counteract “the insidious deceits with which Communists endeavor, all too successfully, to attract even men of good faith.”
Pope Pius XI could have hardly spoken more clearly in describing the Communist menace:
Communism offers the world as the glad tidings of deliverance and salvation! It is a system full of errors and sophisms. It is in opposition both to reason and to Divine Revelation. It subverts the social order, because it means the destruction of its foundations; because it ignores the true origin and purpose of the State; because it denies the rights, dignity and liberty of human personality. [ibid.]
Leaving no room whatsoever for misunderstanding, the Sovereign Pontiff ordered the bishops throughout the world to protect their flocks from any temptation to believe that they may fruitfully cooperate with the Communists:
See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. [ibid.]
As every Catholic worthy of the name surely knows, it is never permissible to collaborate in any endeavor that is intrinsically wrong, and yet, in its approach to Communism, the Second Vatican Council chose the path of cooperation in pursuit of yet another “dialogue” partner.
According to Franco Bellegrandi, longtime L‘Osservatore Romano journalist, Vatican insider, and former member of the Vatican Noble Guard during the pontificates of Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI:
In the course of the Council, firmly bridled in the large hand of Roncalli, when it comes to the “Church of Silence” the password is “hold-your-tongue.” Certain things, unpleasant and irritating to the “conciliatory” at all costs, must not be uttered. So that the men of the West believe in the communist “good will,” even toward religion. Therefore, the directive in the Council is to keep quiet, if not smile, before the incredible evolution of that communism in respectable disguise that now claims to be ready to deal with the Vatican. [See Bellegrandi, Nikita Roncalli, pg. 134]
John XXIII, you see, had dispatched Dean of the College of Cardinals, Eugène Cardinal Tisserant to make a deal with the Devil:
cardinal_tisserant
Cardinal Tisserant
In a 2007 book called The Metz Agreement, veteran French essayist Jean Madiran gathers a number of sourced claims, testifying that a deal was hatched during Soviet-arranged secret talks in 1962. The meeting, Madiran says, took place in Metz, France, between Metropolitan Nikodim, the Russian Orthodox Church’s then-“foreign minister,” and Cardinal Eugène Tisserant, a senior French Vatican official. Metropolitan Nikodim was, according to Moscow archives, a KGB agent.
Various sources have since confirmed that an agreement was reached, instructing the Council not to make any direct attack on Communism. The Orthodox then agreed to accept the Vatican’s invitation to send a number of observers to the Council. [Edward Pentin, Catholic World Report, 10 December, 2012]
And so it is that Communism, the system described by Pope Pius XI as “full of errors and sophisms … in opposition both to reason and to Divine Revelation,” was never directly addressed, much condemned, at Vatican Council II.
Religious Liberty
It is often assumed that an examination of religious liberty as traditionally understood versus the novelties that emerged from the Council is rather complex. Indeed, volumes have been written by Catholic scholars seeking to reconcile the two approaches for more than fifty years now.
Lionel: Scholars who use Cushingism as their theology.This is how they interpret Vatican Council II.
_________________________
In truth, however, the matter is really quite simple and easily understood once one comes to recognize the disparate foundations upon which these two irreconcilable propositions are built.
The conciliar approach is constructed squarely upon the “dignity of the human person” and the rights of man as the very title to the conciliar document, Dignitatis Humanae, suggests.
Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with recognizing and asserting the rights that belong to man; the same being reflective of human dignity. A problem arises, however, when these rights are asserted apart from their corresponding duties.
When this approach prevails, one risks losing sight of the reality that all authentic human rights come from God. In other words, one may fall prey to the lie that man’s rights flow directly from himself and his dignity.
In truth, God is the Source of both human dignity and human rights, and each of these can be lost as man wanders far from Him and His Divine Law.
Lionel: O.K so we can interpret Dignitatis Humanae (DH) by avoiding this error.
_________________________
Consider:
By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and therefore falls away from human dignity, in so far as man is naturally free and exists for his own sake, and falls somehow into the slavery of the beasts… [Aquinas – Summa Theologica – II – II Q. 64 A. 2]
As for the loss of rights, even in civil affairs, men justly lose certain rights when acting outside of the law; e..g., the right to vote, drive, own a firearm, etc.
The Council’s treatment of religious liberty turns even these most basic truths on their head, beginning with its foundation:
The council declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. [cf Dignitatis Humanae]
Ah, the defenders of the Council will be quick to point out, but the document clearly says ‘as known’ through Divine revelation!
Again, be not fooled: While the inclusion of this phrase was evidently enough to placate the concerns of certain of the more tradition-minded bishops, it is one thing to say that our knowledge of human dignity, upon which this alleged right to religious freedom is supposedly founded, comes to us from God; it is quite another to affirm that He is the Source of said dignity, as well as the right in question.
The latter (the truth) places man’s obligation toward God where it belongs; in the first place – the former invites man to assert, as we shall see, an autonomy that is not his own.
The Council paid lip service to the traditional understanding of man’s obligation to seek the truth with respect to the right to religious liberty, saying:
[This Council] leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. [ibid.]
Lionel: The 'traditional Catholic doctrine' affirmed in the Council is the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So we have a moral obligation according to the Faith to proclaim it. We proclaim the dogma EENS with Feeneyism and not Cushingism. This is a  moral obligation,since Cushingism is based on an irrationality, a false premise and inference and it  is non traditional and heretical.It is an innovation in the Church which we need to avoid.
__________________________
Further in the text, however, the traditional doctrine is obliterated, even going so far as to declare that the right in question persists even apart from man upholding his duty toward God:
Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. [ibid.]
In speaking of “immunity,” the Council is referring to man’s supposed freedom to embrace and publicly disseminate whatever religion he may so choose, even if it directly opposes Christ, the one true Church, and her divinely given mission; a concept that couldn’t possibly be further from the same “traditional Catholic doctrine” it claims to leave untouched.
Lionel: This is an interpretation.
DH is referring to a state with a secular Constitution. In such a state this is the de facto position. This is accepted even by the SSPX bishops.
In a Catholic State this freedom may not exist. However even papal states,we can note, allowed non Catholics, to live according to their religion.
___________________________
In fact, this very idea has been consistently condemned by the Church. For instance, in his Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition:
Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.
Lionel: Yes in a Catholic State like those of the papal states. There was no separation of Church and State.
DH is referring to a secular state.
__________________________
According to Pope Benedict XVI, however, at stake in the conciliar debate about religious liberty was precisely “the freedom to choose and practice religion, and the freedom to change it, as fundamental human rights and freedoms.”
Lionel: 
Pope Benedict was a Cushingite. He also said Jews do not need to convert in the present times.
__________________________
Did you get that?
Lionel: DH says there is no change in the traditional teaching. The traditional teaching according to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG14) affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So in a Catholic State the Catholic Faith would be the priority and all political and social legislation would be based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the other teachings of the Catholic Faith. 
_________________________
The Council’s aim in the matter of religious liberty, founded upon “the very dignity of the human person,” is ordered toward protecting and preserving a “right” and a “freedom” that does not truly exist.
Lionel: It is pointing out a right in a state with a secular Constitution.
_________________________
By contrast, let’s now turn to that upon which the traditional doctrine is founded:
It is founded upon the simple proposition that Jesus Christ is King; He to whom all authority in Heaven and on earth has been given.
Lionel: We can affirm this as Catholics even a state with a secular Constitution.
_________________________
No Roman Pontiff expressed the rights and prerogatives that flow from Our Lord’s Sovereignty more concisely and more clearly than Pope Pius XI in his magnificent Encyclical Quas Primas (which I invite you to explore in detail.)
To summarize the traditional doctrine as briefly as possible:
Given that the Catholic faith is the one true faith, and the Holy Catholic Church is the solitary church established by Christ who is King, naturally, the Church and her members enjoy certain rights and privileges that do not properly belong to the false religions and to those who adhere to them – among these exclusive rights is the liberty to practice and profess the true faith free from any and all constraint.
Lionel: Yes in a Catholic State. During the time of Vatican Council II the former papal states had a secular Constitution.
__________________________
This is why Pope Leo XIII could say:
The Church is a society eminently independent, and above all others, because of the excellence of the heavenly and immortal blessings towards which it tends. [Pope Leo XIII, Officio Sanctissino, 22 Dec 1887]
As for the other, “false religions” and their adherents, none can legitimately claim such an absolute right to freedom for the simple reason that the King of kings granted them no such thing. 
Lionel: Yes and we affirm this in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus interpreted with Feeneyism.With Cushingism it is said there is salvation outside the Church.So non Catholics do not have to become formal members of the Catholic Church for Cushingites. They are saved in their religion through Jesus and the Church is the new theology, so they do not have to convert. Their religions are not false according to Cushingism.
_____________________________

The Church, therefore, considers their activities to be at best tolerable under certain conditions, but otherwise subject to regulation and restriction for the good of society.
Lionel: Yes.Agreed.
______________________________
The text of Dignitatis Humanae would lead one to believe otherwise, which is precisely why the “sons of the Council” now in power in Rome treat Quas Primas as a dead letter.
Lionel: The 'sons of the Council' reject Feeneyism so other religions are not false religions. SInce there is salvation outside the Church for them.
_________________________________
Conclusion
As I write on Ash Wednesday of 2016, there are those in the Church who, meaning well, shudder at the very thought that the Second Vatican Council could possibly be, not just an exercise contra Pius XI, but, as Yves Congar plainly admitted, the Church’s “October Revolution.”
Lionel: With Cushingism it was a break with Pius XI. However we do not have to interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and inference, the innovation in theology.
Affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS and cite Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14, NA 4).
Related image
'Objectively speaking' all Jews need to convert for salvation said Chris Ferrara in the recent debate with Mark Shea.Yes, 'objectively speaking',we cannot know of any exception to the exclusivist ecclesiology of Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14, NA 4).

___________________________________
To these I would humbly suggest undertaking a journey of discovery this Lent; one that includes a firsthand examination of “the wondrous wisdom and heroic courage” of the pre-conciliar popes; in particular, the former Ambrogio Damiano Achille Ratti.
For instance, the Holy Father states:
And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion … For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: “That they all may be one…. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,” with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. [Mortalium Animos]
Oh, how many times do our churchmen, including Pope Francis, misappropriate Our Blessed Lord’s prayer (as recorded in Gospel according to St. John, chapter 17) in support of their unbridled ecumenical aims!
Lionel: True, however Louie Verrecchio also supports Pope Francis when he interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So the Council is a break with the old ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return. Louie should be pointing out this error to Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia.
Why should the SSPX interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism for canonical status ?
Why does the Vatican Curia/ CDF not interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and then invite the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate to do the same?
Why cannot the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate offer the Traditional Latin Mass with the old ecclesiology based on Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus, supported by Vatican Council  II ? 
If the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Centers,USA, can be traditionalists who offer the Traditional Latin Mass accepting EENS with Feeneyism, why cannot other traditionalists do the same?
Pope Pius XI continues:
For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. [ibid.]
This, my friends, is precisely the mindset of the disciples of Roncalli’s Council, who labor to encourage earthbound expressions of human cooperation under the guise of “Christian unity.”
Lionel: They cite Vatican Council II as their reference.Louie needs to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.Then show them that there are no references in the Council to support their new ecumenism.
It is only with an irrationality; by assuming hypothetical cases are objectively seen and known, that they have a new theology and a new ecumenism.It is only with the irrational theology that they have references in Vatican Council II to support their understanding of 'Christian unity'.
____________
In truth, as Pope Pius XI states with unassailable precision, there is but one way to unity:
The union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. [ibid.]
Lionel: Yes agreed. This is the position of Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite). 
___________________
By contrast, how did the Council choose to proceed?
In answer to this question, I can perhaps do no better than to provide firsthand testimony from someone who was involved from the earliest days of the newly established Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, all the way to the Council’s conclusion and beyond:

“No one can tell us this is the way they did it last year…” – Cardinal Augustine Bea

Lionel: Agreed since Cushingism was something new. It was an innovation and a rejection of Tradition.
_____________________
Of even lesser concern still was the way Pope Pius XI “did it” back in 1928; with “it” meaning defend the Apostolic faith with “wondrous wisdom and heroic courage, to enlighten the minds and strengthen the wills of the shepherds of souls and of the faithful,”to quote Cardinal Ruffini yet again.
The work of the Council with respect to ecumenism would be “a completely new tradition” indeed.
Unitatis Redintegratio fails to suggest even once that the goal of authentic ecumenism is the conversion of heretics and schismatics to the one true faith; instead it issues more than ten calls for “dialogue” in order to “prepared the way for cooperation between” Catholics and all manner of self-identified “Christians” in supposed service to the common good.
Lionel: Good point. The error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was accepted.Traditional Feeneyism was rejected and the Cushingite innovation was carried over into Vatican Council II.However it is not the end of the matter here.
The hypothetical cases can still be interpreted as only being hypothetical.That's all.So even though for the wrong reasons, superflous text were placed in the Council, we can still interpret these passages as not being explicitly known. They do not refer to objective cases. So 'objectively speaking' they are not exceptions to the old exclusivist ecclesiology.They do not contradict the traditional teaching on an ecumenism of return.In this sense Christian unity would be welcome.
The theology though would have to be Feeneyite.
_________________________ 
Pope Pius XI understood very well the grave dangers associated with such activities, and so he declared:
It is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies [those wherein Catholics join forces with the heretics and schismatics], nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. [ibid.]
Today, with the Council’s winds in their sails, our churchmen do not hesitate to travel the world in order to take part in such interreligious services; in fact, all-too-often, it is the pope himself who leads the way.
Lionel: Since Cushingism says there is salvation outside the Church.
So now the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church only calls for believing in Jesus Christ, to be saved.One does not have to be a formal member of the Church for salvation any more.This is the theology promoted by also the traditionalists when they say the baptism of desire is an exception to EENS. They  imply there are known cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism'.

_____________________
As for what is at stake in the matter, Pope Pius XI left no room for doubt:
The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind. [ibid. NOTE: Here Pope Pius XI quotes Lactantius, a fourth century Christian apologist]
Did you get that?
Lionel: Yes 'the Catholic Church is alone in keeping  true worship', only with the Feeneyite theology.
_____________________ 
At stake here is nothing less serious than “the hope of life and salvation,” to which those outside the Church are “strangers.”
As for the Council’s treatment of ecumenism under the direction of Cardinal Bea whose secretariat, let us recall, was given a mandate from Pope John XIII to operate unconnected to any tradition?
It gave schismatics and heretics every reason to remain within their defective communities – outside of the fount of truth, the house of Faith, and the temple of God that is the Holy Catholic Church alone:
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion … These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation … For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [the communities of the schismatics and heretics] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
The question must be asked, if indeed the liturgical services and communities of the “brethren divided” are “means of salvation,” why should they depart from their comfortable confines in favor of the Catholic Church?
Lionel: We do not know of any Protestant saved outside the Church. According to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14), Protestants need Catholic Faith.This includes the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church, to preserve Sanctifying Grace and to go to Heaven.
They need to be formal members of the Church to avoid Hell, according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The dogma is  not contradicted by anything in Vatican Council II.
______________________________
The answer: There is no reason beyond mere preference.
Cardinal Bea
Cardinal Bea
If the Council is to be believed, membership in the Holy Catholic Church versus a protestant community is rather like the difference between traveling by boat or by raft – regardless of choice, either one will suffice in reaching the desired destination; salvation.
To be clear: Be not fooled by the qualifier “which derive their efficacy…”
The reality is that the liturgies and the communities of the “brethren divided” have no efficacy as liturgies and communities. It is for this reason that Pope Pius XI, a truly Holy Father indeed, expressed a longing for the day when:
Those who are separated from Us: if these humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. [ibid.]
May we live to see the day when Our Lord will grant us a faithful pope who loves the “brethren divided” enough to speak likewise.
Communism
“On the feast of St. Joseph, patron of the universal Church, on the 19th of March, 1937,” Pope Pius XI issued the Encyclical Divini Redemptoris in order to “expose once more in a brief synthesis the principles of atheistic Communism as they are manifested chiefly in bolshevism.”
Note well that the condemnation of Communism to follow was not an entirely new initiative, but rather an attempt to “once more” warn the faithful of its dangers.
Why reiterate this warning then?
As the Holy Father explains, it was necessary in order to counteract “the insidious deceits with which Communists endeavor, all too successfully, to attract even men of good faith.”
Pope Pius XI could have hardly spoken more clearly in describing the Communist menace:
Communism offers the world as the glad tidings of deliverance and salvation! It is a system full of errors and sophisms. It is in opposition both to reason and to Divine Revelation. It subverts the social order, because it means the destruction of its foundations; because it ignores the true origin and purpose of the State; because it denies the rights, dignity and liberty of human personality. [ibid.]
Leaving no room whatsoever for misunderstanding, the Sovereign Pontiff ordered the bishops throughout the world to protect their flocks from any temptation to believe that they may fruitfully cooperate with the Communists:
See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. [ibid.]
As every Catholic worthy of the name surely knows, it is never permissible to collaborate in any endeavor that is intrinsically wrong, and yet, in its approach to Communism, the Second Vatican Council chose the path of cooperation in pursuit of yet another “dialogue” partner.
According to Franco Bellegrandi, longtime L‘Osservatore Romano journalist, Vatican insider, and former member of the Vatican Noble Guard during the pontificates of Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI:
In the course of the Council, firmly bridled in the large hand of Roncalli, when it comes to the “Church of Silence” the password is “hold-your-tongue.” Certain things, unpleasant and irritating to the “conciliatory” at all costs, must not be uttered. So that the men of the West believe in the communist “good will,” even toward religion. Therefore, the directive in the Council is to keep quiet, if not smile, before the incredible evolution of that communism in respectable disguise that now claims to be ready to deal with the Vatican. [See Bellegrandi, Nikita Roncallipg. 134]
John XXIII, you see, had dispatched Dean of the College of Cardinals, Eugène Cardinal Tisserant to make a deal with the Devil:
cardinal_tisserant
Cardinal Tisserant
In a 2007 book called The Metz Agreement, veteran French essayist Jean Madiran gathers a number of sourced claims, testifying that a deal was hatched during Soviet-arranged secret talks in 1962. The meeting, Madiran says, took place in Metz, France, between Metropolitan Nikodim, the Russian Orthodox Church’s then-“foreign minister,” and Cardinal Eugène Tisserant, a senior French Vatican official. Metropolitan Nikodim was, according to Moscow archives, a KGB agent.
Various sources have since confirmed that an agreement was reached, instructing the Council not to make any direct attack on Communism. The Orthodox then agreed to accept the Vatican’s invitation to send a number of observers to the Council. [Edward Pentin, Catholic World Report, 10 December, 2012]
And so it is that Communism, the system described by Pope Pius XI as “full of errors and sophisms … in opposition both to reason and to Divine Revelation,” was never directly addressed, much condemned, at Vatican Council II.
Religious Liberty
It is often assumed that an examination of religious liberty as traditionally understood versus the novelties that emerged from the Council is rather complex. Indeed, volumes have been written by Catholic scholars seeking to reconcile the two approaches for more than fifty years now.
Lionel: Using Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.
This was approved also by Archbishop Lefebvre and Dietrich Von Hildebrand.They approved the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
________________________
In truth, however, the matter is really quite simple and easily understood once one comes to recognize the disparate foundations upon which these two irreconcilable propositions are built.
Lionel: I don't think Louie recognises that there are two theological foundations responsible for all this confusion and the error can be corrected today. We do not have to wait for generations.
Attend the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass and affirm the old ecclesiology. Cite Vatican Council II as a reference and do not interpret hypothetical cases as being objectively known.
It's as simple as that.
___________________________
The conciliar approach is constructed squarely upon the “dignity of the human person” and the rights of man as the very title to the conciliar document, Dignitatis Humanae,suggests.
Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with recognizing and asserting the rights that belong to man; the same being reflective of human dignity. A problem arises, however, when these rights are asserted apart from their corresponding duties.
When this approach prevails, one risks losing sight of the reality that all authentic human rights come from God. In other words, one may fall prey to the lie that man’s rights flow directly from himself and his dignity.
In truth, God is the Source of both human dignity and human rights, and each of these can be lost as man wanders far from Him and His Divine Law.
Consider:
By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and therefore falls away from human dignity, in so far as man is naturally free and exists for his own sake, and falls somehow into the slavery of the beasts… [Aquinas – Summa Theologica – II – II Q. 64 A. 2]
As for the loss of rights, even in civil affairs, men justly lose certain rights when acting outside of the law; e..g., the right to vote, drive, own a firearm, etc.
The Council’s treatment of religious liberty turns even these most basic truths on their head, beginning with its foundation:
The council declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. [cf Dignitatis Humanae]
Ah, the defenders of the Council will be quick to point out, but the document clearly says ‘as known’ through Divine revelation!
Again, be not fooled: While the inclusion of this phrase was evidently enough to placate the concerns of certain of the more tradition-minded bishops, it is one thing to say that our knowledge of human dignity, upon which this alleged right to religious freedom is supposedly founded, comes to us from God; it is quite another to affirm that He is the Source of said dignity, as well as the right in question.
The latter (the truth) places man’s obligation toward God where it belongs; in the first place – the former invites man to assert, as we shall see, an autonomy that is not his own.
The Council paid lip service to the traditional understanding of man’s obligation to seek the truth with respect to the right to religious liberty, saying:
[This Council] leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. [ibid.]
Further in the text, however, the traditional doctrine is obliterated, even going so far as to declare that the right in question persists even apart from man upholding his duty toward God:
Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. [ibid.]
In speaking of “immunity,” the Council is referring to man’s supposed freedom to embrace and publicly disseminate whatever religion he may so choose, even if it directlyopposes Christ, the one true Church, and her divinely given mission; a concept that couldn’t possibly be further from the same “traditional Catholic doctrine” it claims to leave untouched.
In fact, this very idea has been consistently condemned by the Church. For instance, in his Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition:
Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.
According to Pope Benedict XVI, however, at stake in the conciliar debate about religious liberty was precisely “the freedom to choose and practice religion, and the freedom to change it, as fundamental human rights and freedoms.”
Did you get that?
Lionel: These points here have been addressed in the first part of this article, in the previous blog post .1
__________________________
The Council’s aim in the matter of religious liberty, founded upon “the very dignity of the human person,” is ordered toward protecting and preserving a “right” and a “freedom” that does not truly exist.
By contrast, let’s now turn to that upon which the traditional doctrine is founded:
It is founded upon the simple proposition that Jesus Christ is King; He to whom all authority in Heaven and on earth has been given.
No Roman Pontiff expressed the rights and prerogatives that flow from Our Lord’s Sovereignty more concisely and more clearly than Pope Pius XI in his magnificent Encyclical Quas Primas (which I invite you to explore in detail .)
To summarize the traditional doctrine as briefly as possible:
Given that the Catholic faith is the one true faith, and the Holy Catholic Church is the solitary church established by Christ who is King, naturally, the Church and her members enjoy certain rights and privileges that do not properly belong to the false religions and to those who adhere to them – among these exclusive rights is the liberty to practice and profess the true faith free from any and all constraint.
This is why Pope Leo XIII could say:
The Church is a society eminently independent, and above all others, because of the excellence of the heavenly and immortal blessings towards which it tends. [Pope Leo XIII, Officio Sanctissino, 22 Dec 1887]
As for the other, “false religions” and their adherents, none can legitimately claim such an absolute right to freedom for the simple reason that the King of kings granted them no such thing. The Church, therefore, considers their activities to be at best tolerable under certain conditions, but otherwise subject to regulation and restriction for the good of society.
The text of Dignitatis Humanae would lead one to believe otherwise, which is precisely why the “sons of the Council” now in power in Rome treat Quas Primas as a dead letter.
Conclusion
As I write on Ash Wednesday of 2016, there are those in the Church who, meaning well, shudder at the very thought that the Second Vatican Council could possibly be, not just an exercise contra Pius XI, but, as Yves Congar plainly admitted, the Church’s “October Revolution.”
To these I would humbly suggest undertaking a journey of discovery this Lent; one that includes a firsthand examination of “the wondrous wisdom and heroic courage” of the pre-conciliar popes; in particular, the former Ambrogio Damiano Achille Ratti.
Pope Pius XI, pray for us!-Louie Verrecchio
-Lionel Andrades

1
Cardinal Ottaviani was a Cushingite like Pope John XXIII.Those who participated in the Council of Florence were Feeneyites -1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/cardinal-ottaviani-was-cushingite-like.html