I may seem audacious but when I am asked to affirm the Catholic Faith I cite magisterial documents including Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).I am not saying anything new.Catholics are satisfied when they read it.
The difference between me and just about everybody in the Church is, that I do not use an irrational premise, I do not assume hypothetical cases are objectively visible for me in 2017, I do not infer that there is a personally known baptism of desire.While everyone else does just this.
So they have a new theology, a new conclusion based on an irrational premise. They use this theology as an interpretative tool. So the result is Vatican Council II is a rupture with the ecclesiocentrism of the past.
Since I avoid this new theology of Rahner,Kung,Ratzinger and Kasper I am automatically back to the old ecclesiology.I do not have to propose a new theory or add anything new.
I am a Feeneyite in my interpretation of Vatican Council II they are all Cushingites.
They can all choose to be Feeneyites like me.
Change your theology and you change your view of the Church.You get in line with St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Maximillian Kolbe, St. Francis Xavier, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross,St. Don Bosco...
I use Feeneyism and the two popes, traditionalists,sedevacantists and liberals use Cushingism.
For me the Baptism of Desire is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For me Invincible Ignorance is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For meVatican Council II is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me the Nicene Creed is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
I avoid the New Theology.They uses it.
For me the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Feeneyite.For them it is Cushingite.-Lionel Andrades
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
Baptism of Desire (Feeneyite): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (Cushingite): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is a visible case or the SSPX it is relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance ( Feeneyite): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
Invincible Ignorance (Cushingite): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was Feeneyite.
Liberal theologians: They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.
Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.: It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.
Letter of the Holy Office ( Cushingite). It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It worngly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.(The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion).
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.
Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) ; It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.
Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
New Theology: It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite): .It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, since God is not limited to the Sacraments.
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needin to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvatioon.-Lionel Andrades
January 12, 2017
Cardinal Muller caves heavily
January 11, 2017
Cardinal Burke tell Pope Francis that Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) is not magisterial and he cannot accept it while he accepts Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and would expect the pope to do the same
January 10, 2017
Vatican Council II as interpreted by the two popes cannot be magisterial for Cardinal Burke since it is no different from the philosophical error in Amoris Laetitia http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/01/vatican-council-ii-as-interpreted-by.html
January 10, 2017
Leftist moral theology blessed in Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis and Cardinal Muller
January 9, 2017
Cardinal Muller for ideological reasons has changed doctrine with an irrational theology to create magisterial heresy