As a Catholic I affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite-without the premise) in harmony with EENS(Feeneyite), for me the Nicene Creed simply says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and not three known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water in the Church

My response today to a letter.

Dear ...,

Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.

Thanks for your reply but you've missed the point of what I was trying to say.

I know you'll affirm all Magisterial documents and so do I.

Pope Francis is the pope for me.

Having got all this out of the way the point I want to make is that being saved in invincible  ignorance(I.I), the baptism of desire(BOB) and the baptism of blood(BOB), which you , the Magisterium and I affirm, can be interpreted in two ways and the conclusion would be different.

I repeat we both accept that theoretically a person can be saved with BOD, BOB and I.I if God wants it. So BOD, BOB and I.I is not the issue at least for me.

And here I come to the point I want to make and you will find a lot of material on my blog.It is there on the  subject of Cushingism and Feeneyism(according to Lionel Andrades).

This ordinary lay man is saying that with Cushingism( it says BOD,BOB and I.I refers to known people saved outside the Church) there is a different interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

With Feeneyism (BOD etc refer to unknown people saved outside the Church in 2018 for example) the interpretation is traditional, like in the 16th century.

But the heart of the issue is that with Feeneyism the interpretation of Vatican Council II also dramatically changes.

The popes since Paul VI have interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism.I use Feeneyism.

So Vatican Council II(Cushingite) is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite-traditional).It is also a rupture with Vatican Council II( Feeneyite-traditional).

So Vatican Council has always been a rupture with Tradition for you all there.Since Cushingism produces the hemeneutic of discontinuity.

Of course this would be expected since the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II itself is Cushingite.

The false premise (BOD refers to visible people saved outside the Church) used in the 1949 Letter in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case was made the new doctrine at Vatican Council II.

So could you all  clarify at  least for me, that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to hypothetical cases in 2018 ? We cannot meet or see someone saved as such?

Probably every one there would respond with a  'Yes, they are hypothetical cases we cannot meet any one saved with BOD, BOB and I.I since they would be in Heaven'.

Then I come to my beliefs as a Catholic. I affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite-without the premise) which is in harmony with EENS(Feeneyite).For me the Nicene Creed simply says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and not three known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water, this would be Cushingite.I interpret Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus with Feeneyism and I am aware that Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria s.j would choose Cushingism.I interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Feeneyite) in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.

So I affirm Vatican Council II along with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.

Can you all say the same? This is a doctrinal issue.

-Lionel Andrades