Traditionalists are not affirming the Catholic Faith to protect their worldly interests and are asking for donations

As a Catholic I believe in Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) so for me unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) are not known exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.

The ecclesiology of the Church is the same before and after Vatican Council II since Lumen Gentium 16 etc refer to unknown cases in 2017.

They are hypothetical cases for those who affirm EENS(Feeneyite) like the missionaries and magisterium of the past centuries.

This is not how the rest of the Church seems to interpret EENS or Vatican Council II.

I am not rejecting the traditional interpretation of EENS nor the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.

The traditionalists, liberals,Masons and the two popes  use an irrational premise to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS.They are a rupture with the past authentic magisterium of the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The traditionalists Roberto dei Mattei, Christopher Ferrara,Louie Verrecchio, Hilary White,Joseph Shaw,John Salza and many others will not affirm Feeneyite EENS in public.

Traditionalists are not endorsing the Faith in public to protect their worldly interests and they ask for donations and act as if they have it right on doctrine and theology.

They are deleting my comments since they do not want to get into trouble with the Left or create any controversy.They are also presently interpreting Vatican Council II like the Left i.e as a rupture with Tradition.This is done even though they have a choice.

Some do not know the faith, geniunely, and are waiting for other traditionalists to comment and then they will follow support them.This is how the invisible cases of the baptism of desire are visible mistake was made by millions of Catholics. One was following the other without thinking.They were expecting the magisterium to always be correct.

If they affirmed Feeneyite EEBS they would be saying that Archbishop Lefebvre, Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr.John Hardon and the present day Lefebvrist sedevacatists(Bishops Dolan,Pirvanus and Sanborn, Fr.Cekada etc) had made a mistake on Vatican Council II.They did.It is now becoming clear to many. Since they used the false premise to interpret the Council eliciting a non traditional conclusion.They all had originally made a mistake on EENS too.They accepted the confusion of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.

Now they all have to depend on probablities being known people in the present time who are saved outside the Church.Things are so bad.

But they dare not not affirm Feeneyite EENS.Bishop Sanoborn and Fr.Cekada have articles on line critizing Fr. Leonard Feeney and suggesting that invisible and unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are practical and known exceptions to EENS.Possibilites are exceptions in 2017.They are living examples, for them,  of people who in the present time have been saved outside the Church. So their  conclusion, a relief for them,  is that not every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.They will affirm the magisterium on this issue but oppose the magisterium on Vatican Council II.

The traditionalists  have written so may reports on Vatican Council II and they were wrong all along and now they still do not want to correct themselves.Vatican Council II(Cushingite) and not Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is a rupture with Tradition.

Then they are also afraid of the leftist laws.Hilary White has written a report on Amoris Laetitia and is not willing to discuss if traditionalists made a mistake.

Similarly Joseph Shaw can write about the heresies of one Msgr.Loftus but not discuss how both of them, Shaw and Loftus use an irrational premise to interpret magisterial documents. Loftus is happy with the results Shaw is not.Shaw will delete my comments on the Feeney interpretation of EENS and Vatican Council II, since his priority is his teaching job at leftist Oxford University.

He will also not comment when liberal Gavin D'Costa,Catholic theologian, at the University of Bristol,  interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise as does Shaw himself.One considers himself a Catholic liberal at Bristol and the other a Catholic traditionalist at Oxford and both will not affirm Feeneyite EENS which would mean that BOD,BOB and I.I refer to unknown and invisible people in England.The strange philosophy academics have to support to keep their teaching job.

I have responded to the Pledge of Fidelity and e-mailed John Smeaton.Possibly Smeaton will stay say that this is a subject he does not know much about.

Not knowing about EENS( Feeneyite) and its connection to the interpretation of Vatican Council II, Roberto dei Mattei  and Christopher Ferrara wrote books on Vatican Council II. Now they are silent when I send them these blog posts.Atila Guimares  wrote his book on Vatican Council II  based on the false invisible people are visible premise and he was approved by John Vennari and Fr. Nicholas Gruner.

This group of Lefbristist traditionalists were unaware of their error in theology(Cushingite) and doctrine( known salvation outside the Church). When the  Left state that the traditionalists are in schism or heresy( for affirming Vatican Council II and EENS Cushingite) they object and say they are traditionalists and are not teaching anything new. Christopher Ferrara for example keeps repeating this when it is pointed out to him the specific new things he and the SSPX bishops have been teaching, which is really modernism.

-Lionel Andrades