Repost : I am referring to Feeneyism and Cushingism as explained on my blog.The fault does not lie with Vatican Council II in itself. It depends upon how you interpret the Council, whether you use Cushingism or Feeneyism. Cushingism results in the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

FEBRUARY 19, 2018

I am referring to Feeneyism and Cushingism as explained on my blog.The fault does not lie with Vatican Council II in itself. It depends upon how you interpret the Council, whether you use Cushingism or Feeneyism. Cushingism results in the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

I am referring to Feeneyism and Cushingism as explained on my blog.

I am not referring to Fr. Leonard Feeney and Cardinal Cushing in particular.

I use their names since it has meaning for me. However any other name could have been used.

Feeneyism refers to accepting hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical. Invisible people are simply called invisible.

Cushingism refers to hypothetical cases being concrete and known people in the present times.

So with Feeneyism BOD, BOB and I.I are hypothetical cases only. So they cannot be exceptions to EENS.

With Cushingism BOD,BOB and I.I are not hypothetical and are assumed to be visible people saved outside the Church

and so they become exceptions to EENS.

Similarly with Feeneyism LG 16, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2 ,GS 22 refer to hypothetical cases, invisble people in 2018. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS.

With Cushingism LG 16, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to real people saved outside the Church and so Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS.

So the fault does not lie with Vatican Council II in itself. It depends upon how you interpret the Council, whether you use Cushingism orFeeneyism.

Cushingism results in the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

The liberals and traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism.

The St. Benedict Centers interpret EENS withFeeneyism but Vatican Council II withCushingism.-Lionel Andrades