Vatican Council II is Cushingite.We have to live with this.The Council Fathers, including Pope Benedict made a mistake.There is no known salvation outside the Church.They wrongly inferred that there was.Then upon this false inference they created a new theology. Outside the Church there is salvation.It was a frontal attack on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This was an aim, or the aim, of the liberals, Masons and Americanists.
So Vatican Council II is now given to us with a false theology which cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre unknowingly accepted this and so the opposition to the liberals was neutralized.Even now after 50 years later the SSPX bishops, priests and laity are not discussing this issue.
They interpret Vatican Council II and Catholic traditional salvation based on irrational Cushingism.Even traditionalist bloggers Louie Verrecchio, David Domet,Hilary White and Ann Barnhardt are doing the same.May be they do not want to admit that a mistake was made by Archbishop Lefebvre.
For quite a few years I have been saying that invisible for us baptism of desire cannot be a visible exception to the dogma EENS.So the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) never were exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Even though I have repeated this so many times, Ann Barnhardt does not discuss this point and recently produced an article on baptism of desire and St.Emerentiana.
Even if St. Emerentiana was saved with the baptism of desire(BOD) and without the baptism of water how can she be an objective exception to EENS in 2018 ?
No answer from Ann.
How can a BOD, BOB and I.I case, now saved in Heaven also be visible on earth?
No answer from her.
How saw St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water?
No one knows.
How can a possibility in the past be relevant to EENS in the present?
Her premise is false and so her conclusion is also false.It is non traditional and heretical.
It is difficult also for Chris Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei to admit this.Soon there will be another of their traditionalist conference and they will ignore this issue.
Roberto dei Mattei,Nicholas Gruner, Christopher Ferrara and Atila Sinke Guimares wrote their books on Vatican Council II without knowing about Feeneyism and Cushingism as a theology and philosophy.
Why with Feeneyism( according to Lionel Andrades and not the SBC) Vatican Council II is in harmony with the old ecclesiology of the Church? Was not Bugnini or someone else responsible for the rupture with Tradition?
Why with Feeneyism ( according to L.A) we can affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite), attend Holy Mass in English and there is continuity with the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition?
Why? Since I am not using Cushingism as a theology like every body else.
The traditionalists do not want to affirm EENS and Vatican Council II with Feeneyite theology since they are as insecure and worldly prudent as those who attend Holy Mass in the vernacular.
Christopher Ferrara no more talks about mission and exclusive salvation.How can he say in public that Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) supports the old exclusivist ecclesiology ?
Bishop Fellay does not proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.How can he support Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and EENS Feeneyite ? EENS (Feeenyite) was the basis in the past for proclaiming the Social Reign of Christ the King.
He could support the Catholic political parties which affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King, in Italy for example.He can show the Left that there is no separation of Church and State.
These traditionalists do not want to proclaim Faith and they only know Vatican Council II(Cushngite) like the liberals and Masons, since it is safe and prudent for them to do so.
So the fault does not lie with Vatican Council II but the traditionalist interpretation of it with Cushingite theology.
When the word salvation is mentioned in Vatican Council II, for the Cushingites, it refers to a known case.For the Feeneyites, it refers to only a hypothetical case. It is speculation with good will for the Feeneyite. If it is a probability in a particular case, it would only be known to God.Probabilities are meaningless with reference to EENS. Since a probability cannot be an objective exception.
So the Cushingites read hypothetical cases as being non hypothetical.They are objective.The Feeneyites read hypothetical cases as being just hypothetical and invisible in the present times.
Even though Vatican Council II is Cushingite it can be interpreted with Feeneyite theology and the conclusion is traditional.We can undo the bad work of the Council Fathers.-Lionel Andrades
RELEVANT LABELS/ TAGS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS BLOG (CLICK TO ACCESS).
Vatican Council II( premise free)(2)
Vatican Council II(Cushingite).(5)
Vatican Council II(Feeneyite)(8)
Vatican Council II(premise free)(2)
Vatican Council II(premise-free)(6)