Saturday, May 26, 2018

Why should a Catholic choose the new Cushingite reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II when the rational and traditional Feeneyite version is there ?

We are so used to reading Vatican Council II with concepts of the Masons and enemies of the Catholic Church having infiltrated it. They were there, of course, and they rigged the Council. But they had to use a specific theology and philosophy  to make the change.The change could not have come out of nothing and be acceptable to all in 1960-1965.
So they used the new Cushingism philosophy and theology from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to make the change in doctrine and eliminate the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
The popes overlooked the irrational philosophy and theology, the error was subtle.
Outwardly the Cushingites affirmed the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance( I.I). But they were referring to visible and known people saved outside the Church.Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr.Luiz Ladaria s.j maintained the deception after Vatican Council II, in the theological papers of the International Theological Commission, Vatican.
For the popes and saints of the past, BOD, BOB and I.I  referred to hypothetical cases, speculation with good will.This is something obvious. BOD, BOB and I.I can only be known to God.But then the Cushingites went to work.They changed the narrative on BOD, BOB and I.I.When Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura and the old Catechisms, of Trent and Pius X, mentioned BOD,BOB and I.I, Cushingites inferred, that it was a reference to visible people saved outside the Church.Even though there were no such people.So they then could project BOD, BOB and I.I as a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.
But for St. Thomas Aquinas and numerous saints, BOD, BOB and I.I referred to hypothetical cases only and so Aquinas affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, as did St. Augustine.This was the Feeneyite version.
But the Cushingites at Vatican Council II went ahead and placed orthodox passages supporting EENS alongside unorthodox passages, Cushingite passages(AG 7, LG 14).We see this dual approach, for and against EENS.We have Feeneyite and Cushingite passages together.
This was a deception. Since the Cushingite passages refer to only theoretical speculation, things hoped for.We humans cannot know how God would judge exceptions to EENS, exceptions to the ordinary means of salvation,exceptions to all needing faith and baptism to avoid Hell (AG 7, LG 14).They were successful.
But now we know that Cushingism has a built in flaw and we can undo the work of Rahner, Ratzinger, Kung and the other liberal theologians, Cushingites.
We simply have to be aware of the Cushingite passages as referring to hypothetical cases.
So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.We are then back to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church, since the Cushingite passages are 'duds', 'dead wood', 'flotsam and jetsam'.No one in 2018 can physically see or meet someone saved outside the Catholic Church with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8).No one today or in the past could have seen someone saved outside the Church, where the true Church of Christ allegedly subsists (LG 8). We cannot know of any one saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience outside the Church(LG 16), nor in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3).Dead wood, theoretical speculation cannot be explicit exceptions to EENS.Mentioning LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc was a Cushingite deception.
With Cushingism, Cardinal Ratzinger gave us the New Theology, New Ecclesiology, New Evangelisation,New Code of Canon Law, New Ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue without the dogma EENS.
Theologically, Cardinal Ratzinger pegged it all on there being known salvation outside the Church, invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were physically visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS.
So this is now where we are today with Cushingism.
But the good news is that we have found the missing link.We now know what makes Vatican Council II a  rupture or continuity with Tradition.We can put our fingger on the exact cause, the specific theology and irrational reasoning.
It is just one specific cause  which creates  the break with Tradition (EENS, Syllabus of Errors) which can be corrected.Then start the problems for the liberals and the present Vatican Curia and two popes.'Rome will have come back to the Faith'.
Since in post -Vatican Council times,  we go back to the old 16th century  ecclesiology of the Church.Then rationally, there can only be an ecumenism of return,non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation,the majority of souls on earth are on the way to Hell since they die without faith and baptism,there is a necessity to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King since outside the Church there is no salvation and saving souls is a priority.
So the ordinary lay Catholic, will choose rationality and tradition to interpret Magisterial documents.Why should Catholics choose the new Cushingite reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II when the rational Feeneyite version is there?-Lionel Andrades

No comments: