As most readers are by now well aware, a letter sent by Cardinal Muller to Bishop Bernard Fellay, with the approval of Francis, has been made public...1
At the very least, we can deduce from item #1 in Cardinal Muller’s letter that Bishop Fellay agreed to make the 1962 Profession of Faith rather than the 1988 Profession (as apparently required according to the Declaration), to which the CDF responded, “it is not sufficient.”
Lionel: The 1962 Profession of Faith states, 'This same Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, I now freely profess and I truly adhere to it. ' This is rejected with Cushingite theology. Vatican Council II(Cushingite) rejects the teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation.
Also the Oath Against Modernism now remains meaningless.It states 'Fourthly, I sincerely accept the doctrine of faith in the same sense and with always the same meaning as it has been handed down to us from the apostles through the officially approved fathers. ' The doctrine of the faith has been changed with Cushingite theology.Since Pope Benedict assumed there was salvation outside the Church.
The Oath states ' And therefore I wholly reject the heretical notion of the evolution of dogmas, according to which doctrines pass from one sense to another sense alien to that which the Church held from the start.' In March 2016 Pope Benedict confirmed that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was no more like it was for the missionaries of the 16th century. There was 'a development' with Vatican Council II ( it was Cushingite for him).
The Oath states ,'I also reject the error of those who allege that the faith proposed by the Church may conflict with history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, cannot be reconciled with the actual origins of Christianity'.Pope Benedict was heretical in the Avvenire interview in March 2016 and no one objected.
The 1988 Profession of Faith states, ' I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins '.This has become controversial since there can be two interpretations.One interpretation is without an irrational premise and the other is with it.One is Feeneyite and the other is Cushingite. I would use the Feeneyite version.The CDF uses the Cushingite version which is irrational and the conclusion is non traditional.
OATH OF FIDELITY ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE
TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH
The Oath of Fidelity on Assuming an Office states 'With Christian obedience I shall follow what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish. I shall also faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church'. 3
This passage from the Oath of Fidelty calls for obedience to Bishops and others who interpret magisterial documents with irrational Cushingism. In other words obedience to heresy is a requirement in the Church.
(I will address the Profession of Faith in more detail in a future post.)
With regard to item #2, the wholesale embrace of Vatican Council II is impossible.
Lionel: The 'wholesale embrace of Vatican Council II' is possibile with Feeneyite theology.NA 2, LG 16,LG 8, UR 3,GS 22 etc all refer to hypothetical cases.So they really are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology of the Church or to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted, for example, in the 16th century. There is no rupture with Tradition.
With Cushingite theology, Bishop Fellay, Fr.Pier Paolo Petrucci, the SSPX Superior in Italy, Louie Verrecchio, David Domet( Vox Cantoris),Steve Skojec and others interpret NA 2, LG 16, LG 8 , UR 3 etc as refering to explicit cases.So they infer that there are exceptions in Vatican Council II to the old ecclesiology of the Church and in particular to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Council becomes a rupture with Tradition.So the fault is not there with Vatican Council II but their assuming invisible cases are visible.Then they infer that these visible cases exclude the baptism of water and so are exceptions to EENS.
So too is the requirement set forth in item #3 with respect to affirming the “legitimacy” of the NovusOrdo Missae.
“A law is legitimate only when it is duly promulgated by the lawfully constituted authority. But to this condition must be added another of supreme importance and essential to make it a law: it must be for the common good. And precisely on this score, the NovusOrdoMissae (NOM) is most defective as was attested at the time of its promulgation by no less than Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci [the ‘Ottaviani Intervention]…’”
Lionel: Cardinal Ottaviani was a Cushingite.He offered the Traditional Latin Mass with the new ecclesiology.It was based on invisible baptism of desire being a visible exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.He also overlooked this objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It was the same with Cardinal Bacci.They made a major mistake in theology.So how can the Mass be rejected based on their observations.
Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci and Archbishop Lefebvre issued a Letter in which ' the two cardinals said that the study showed that the new Order of Mass "represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent...to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever' 4
The three of them did not know that ' a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass' was due to irrational Cushingism.
Cardinals Bugnini, Bea, Ottaviani etc were responsible for their personal interpretation of Vatican Council II. Simply inverse the visible-invisible distinction and their interpretaton changes.
Cardinal Muller’s letter doesn’t provide any further substantial insight into Bishop Fellay’s response, but it does tell us that, short of an about face on Rome’s part, the discussions are effectively over.
Lionel: No the discussions are not yet over.Bishop Fellay must interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism. He can choose Feeneyite theology and reject the present Cushingite one.Then he can ask Cardinal Ladaria to affirm Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) in public.Since the traditional Council,Feeneyite, would no more be an issue for the SSPX.
It will be Cardinal Ladaria who will want to reject Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
The reason is simple:
Neither the Second Vatican Council nor the Novus Ordo Missae can be reconciled with tradition and, as such, each one poses a grave danger to the faithful.
Lionel: Neither can the Second Vatican Council or the Novus Ordo Missae, interpreted with irrational Cushingism as a theology, be reconciled with tradition.Since the conclusions of this interpretation would be irrational, non traditional and heretical.
Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) can be reconciled with traditional.
The witness of the past five decades testifies to this truth with impeccable clarity for those with eyes to see.
Among so-called “traditionalists” no one disagrees.
Lionel: Catholics now know that they have a choice in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. It is no more the same as it was during the time of Archbishop Lefebvre and the consecration of the four bishops.
It is clear for many that Archbishop Lefebvre made a philosophical mistake. He assumed that invisible for us baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to EENS. Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson today says they are not.
Fr.Stefano Visintin osb, the Vice Rector of the University of St. Anselm in Rome, also says they are not visible and personally known exceptions to EENS.Other priests in Rome agree with him.
This brings me back to the message given by Our Lady at Fatima where she warned us about precisely these things; Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae – “a bad council and a bad Mass.”
Lionel: With Cushingism only.
Also I think this is an interpretation of what Our Lady said at Fatima.I am coming an across it for the first time.
We must note that Fr.Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and Chris Ferrara had it wrong on Vatican Council II. They wrote books on the Council unaware of Vatican Council II( Feeneyite). It was the same with Dietrich Von Hildebrand, Michael Treharne Davies,Roberto dei Mattei and Atila S.Guimares.They just did not know about Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite). Daphne Mceold once agreed that these apologists had made a mistake.
It was the same with the apologists Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Ludwig Ott and Fr.William Most.They did not know that without the invisible baptism of desire is visible premise the interpretation of the Council completely changes.
Again, among so-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) no one disagrees.
Lionel: 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma EENS', said the apologist John Martignoni. Traditionalists are only now becoming aware of it.
So why, pray tell, do we now find so-called “Fatimists” swooning over prelates who staunchly defend the supposed goodness of both the Council and the new Mass?
Lionel: If the prelates use Cushingite theology it should be rejected.
I suppose the answer to this was given by Our Lady as well; diabolical disorientation.
Thankfully, the Blessed Virgin also gave us the remedy.
On June 13, 1917 – 99 years before the aforementioned “doctrinal Declaration” was transmitted to Bishop Fellay, Our Lady said to little Lucia:
“[Jesus ] wants to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. I promise salvation to those who embrace it, and those souls will be loved by God, like flowers placed by me to adorn His throne … Don’t lose heart. I will never forsake you. My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.”
Let us renew our consecration to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary, begging her on behalf of ourselves and others to gather us therein; to protect us from all forms of deception; to grant us the grace to recognize half-truths and errors and the fortitude to condemn them for the poison that they are regardless of their source.
Lionel: We can renew our consecration to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Mother and also affirm Feeneyite theology and reject Cushingite irrationality and then see the dramatic difference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.-Lionel Andrades