This is how the magisterium presently wrongly interprets magisterial documents

I use Feeneyism and Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Muller, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Mark Pirvanus, Bishop Donald Sanborn and the sedevacantists Michael and Peter Dimond   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 me Vatican 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 the Dimond Brothers extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Feeneyite but they reject the baptism of desire which is Cushingite for them.In  other words it refers to known and visible people. This is the inference.

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 in the first part  and Cushingite in the second part.For them it is Cushingite and acceptable.

I avoid the New Theology, while they use it.The New Theology is Cushingism.It's philosophy is Cushingite.

For me the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.

For Hans Urs von Balthasar, Bishop Robert Barron, Michael Voris and CMTV the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) is Cushingite and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).So they are left with a new version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), it is EENS (Cushingite).So now they support the BOD and I.I (Cushingite) and EENS (Cushingite).Their interpretation of Vatican Council II, with Cushingite LG 16( invincible ignorance) and Cushingite LG 14 ( baptism of desire) is  a rupture with Tradition (EENS(Feeneyite),Syllabus of Errors,Feeneyite past eccclesiology of the Catholic Church etc).

So their philosophical and theological position is an innovation in the Church with BOD and I.I, EENS and Vatican Council II all being Cushingite.



For me BOD and I.I are not visible.So they are Feeneyite. They do not refer to personally known cases in the present times. They are always hypothetical and theoretical in the past and present.So they cannot physically be exceptions to EENS (Feeneyite).

BOD and I.I were and are always Feeneyite.
So for me  Vatican Council II is Feeneyite since it it is not a rupture with EENS(Feeneyite).It does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors with the old ecclesiocentrism.

For me BOD and I.I, EENS, Vatican Council II, Syllabus of Errors etc are always Feeneyite.They have a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

I do not mix up what is invisible as being visible. So we do not have the hermeneutic of rupture.Since Pope Benedict and Archbishops Guido Pozzo and Augustine di Noia are Cushingites, Vatican Council II has to have a hermeneutic of rupture.

Similarly I would interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism. CCC 846 and 1257 would not be a break with EENS (Feeneyite).However for the Cushingites CCC 846(Outside the Church No Salvation) and CCC 1257(The Necessity of Baptism) would be a rupture with Tradition ( EENS,Feeneyite).For me CCC 846 and 1257 would refer to invisible cases of BOD and I.I and 'God not being limited to the Sacraments'. Cushingites would infer that they know of specific cases of persons saved outside the Church i.e without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
Since CCC 846 says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church, Cushingites would say there are known cases of BOD and I.I. 'All who are saved are saved through Jesus and Church' is the line which suggests that there are known cases of BOD,BOB and I.I.It is misleading.

The terms Cushingism and Feeneyism are useful. It tells us when someone is  referring to EENS, Vatican Council II, BOD and I.I etc, being invisible or visible.Presently unknowingly, Catholics assume invisible cases are visible.This is how the magisterium  wrongly interprets magisterial documents.

-Lionel Andrades