When will Bishop Schneider understand ? : The enemies of the Church( and The Enemy)has inverted doctrine.So what is heresy is now considered orthodoxy by conservative and traditional Catholics.They are innocent and are not aware of it.

There are so many e-mails I have sent Bishop Schneider  and I suppose others have also called his attention to Feeneyism and Cushingism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II explained exclusively on Lionel's Blog(Eucharist and Mission).We can interpret Vatican Council II with the theology of Feeneyism or Cushingism and the conclusion would be different.It would be a rupture or continuity with Tradition.

When I refer to Feeneyism I do not mean it as it is interpreted by the St. Benedict Centers, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, USA.

I refer to Feeneyism according to Lionel Andrades.

It simply says that there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I). This is something we can all agree upon.This concept of Feeneyism has to be understood by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

He must also understand that he uses the theology of Cushingism ( as defined by L.A).Cushingism assumes invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are physically visible.It is the opposite of Feeneyism.Bishop Schneider is a Cushingite.

Like the St.Benedict Centers and the SSPX he interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism.So there is a rupture with Tradition .Then he calls for a Syllabus of Errors .There is no rupture with Tradition for me and this is unbelievable for most people, who are not aware of Feeneyism according to Lionel's Blog.

Just as the Magisterium was wrong on Amoris Laeitia ,and the Kazakh bishops have correctly pointed out the mistake similarly they must correct the magisterial error of Cushingism.Cushingism is explained only on Lionel's Blog.

Archbishop Lefebvre, like Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism.We have to face this reality. Lefebvre and the popes made a mistake.

Pope Paul VI and the cardinals at Vatican Council II only knew Cushingism.They made a specific error.They mistook invisible and unknown references in Vatican Council II(LG 16, GS 22 etc) as being visible and known and this has become the new theology.Their mistake was specific. They thought there were known people saved outside the Church.

If it would have been announced at Vatican Council II or later, that invisible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I are not visible, it would have been fresh air and it would have ended all the confusion.The smoke has come into the Church with this mix up up between what is invisible and visible, unknown and known,implicit and explicit.

Now Cushingism is a theme in Vatican Council II.Just about every where hypothetical cases are mentioned.

Why mention subsist it(LG 8) in when we do not have any known person saved in that category?

Why mention elements of sanctification and truth outside the Church(LG 8) when we personally cannot know any one saved as such?

A ray of that Truth which enlightens all me would be known only to God(NA 2)? 

Who among us knows of someone saved in 'imperfect communion' with the Church(UR 3), the Anonymous Christian ?

These are all hypothetical cases.
Cushingism mixes up what is hypothetical as being concrete and real.

Feeneyite passages however did get through at Vatican Council II when Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and Nostra Aetate 4 mentions Catholics as the new  people of God .

When Bishop Schneider reads Vatican Council II he has to be aware of these references to hypothetical cases(UR 3, LG 16 etc).Then in his mind he will note that Lumen Gentium  16 etc cannot be exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.

The Magisterium made a mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center of his time were correct.It was the Archbishop of Boston and the Holy Office in 1949 who were in heresy with their Cushingite interpretation of EENS.

Today EENS is interpreted with Cushingism i.e mixing up BOD etc as being visible and then assuming  that this is an example, of known salvation outside the Church.BOD is considered an exception to the centuries old interpretation of EENS.Due to the heresy of the Holy Office we now have a Cushingite version of EENS which is a rupture with EENS as it was known to the magisterium of the 16th century.
It would be nice to hear Bishop Athansius Schneider say that the majority of people in Kazhakistan are oriented to Hell since they die without faith and baptism(AG 7)in the Catholic Church.This would be a Feeneyite interpretation of Vatican Council II in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
These are Catholic truths, teachings of Vatican Council II which he could affirm in public.He would not have to reject the Council or ask for a Syllabus of Errors.
What I write here about Feeneyism( according to L.A) is the old teachings of the Catholic Church but presented in an original way.
I am not saying anything new but then I am also not interpreting Vatican Council II like everybody else.
So when you refer to Vatican Council II also refer to the Lionel-version, for precision.
No one else has noticed the 'invisible-visible link' or explained it like I have done.
I have mentioned my name so that the issue becomes concrete.It is not the apologetics of the SBC, SSPX  or sedevacantists.It is that of L.A.
Basically what I am saying is that there are no visible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2018.Neither were there any in 1949 or 1960-65.
For Bishop Schneider, the Magisterium has made a mistake in Vatican Council II but he does not see that the Magisterium had also made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.This is not possible for him since he does not make the 'visible-invisible' distinction in philosophy and theology.
The enemies of the Church( and The Enemy)has inverted doctrine.So what is heresy is now considered orthodoxy  by conservative and traditional Catholics.They are innocent and are not aware of it.
-Lionel Andrades