They will have a day of study at the Lepanto Foundation conference on June 23 not knowing that there is a mistake in Lumen Gentium 14, since the Council Fathers used Cushngism as a theology.They assumed invincible ignorance referred to known people saved outside the Church.
They made the same mistake in Ad Gentes 7 where there are passages mentioning being saved in invincible ignorance and that of the case of the unknown catechumen.They are mentioned along with passages which say all need faith and baptism for salvation.Makes sense? Invisible people are objective exceptions in the present times to all needing faith and baptism for salvation ? Do you know any one saved outside the Catholic Church this year(2018) ?
These mistakes in the text of Vatican Council II will get past the speakers and participants at the Conference.So they will misinterpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11(seeds of the Word) etc.These are all references to hypothetical cases.They should not be mistaken as known people saved outside the Church. They cannot be for us examples of salvation outside the Church. This is a false way of reading Vatican Council II.This is the reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).
They are all mentioned in Vatican Council II because of the Cushingite mix up. The Council Fathers wrongly assumed that what is hypothetical and unknown in personal cases was relative to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS).This was the reasoning in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was not corrected by Pope Pius XII.
So at the Conference they will end their Day of Study not knowing that the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) can be interpreted as referring to explicit or implicit, objective or subjective, visible or invisible cases -and one of the two interpretations is rational while the other is irrational and common.
So John Lamont will present a talk on the New Theology not knowing that Vatican Council II interpreted without the New Theology, Cushingite theology, supports the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
Maria Guarini will speak on Summorum Pontificium not knowing that permission for the Latin Matin ( Extraordinary Form) has only been given, by the present two popes, since the traditionalists interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to objective, explicit and visible non Catholics saved outside the Church.So there is a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church, which accompanied the Tridentine Latin Mass and the Byzantine Greek Mass.
Enrico M.Radaelli will probably say that Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition without clarifying that he is referring to Vatican Council II,Cushingite.He is a student of Romano Amerio who did not know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise.It can be interpreted with Feeneyism and without the New Theology.
Joseph Shaw of the Latin Mass Society, will interpret all magisterial documents with Cushingism since this is expected of him by the English bishops, Ecclesia Dei and the political Left.
Similarly Roberto dei Mattei will not affirm Vatican Council II and EENS, with Feeneyism.He will use the irrational premise, which creates a rupture with Tradition.
Abbé Claude Barthe has written about Vatican Council II but is not aware of the difference between Feeneyism and Cushingism and how the Council can be interpreted with Feeneyism and so be in harmony with the old ecclesiology of the Church.So the old ecclesiology, even today, can be part of the old Mass and also the Mass in the vernacular which he supports with reforms.
Fr. Albert Kallio, O.P,one of the speakers,had spoken on "The Filial Correction and Possible Papal Heresies: A Dogmatic Investigation," at the Catholic Family News Conference.Like most Dominicans, he rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with his Cushingite interpretation.So for him Vatican Council II has to be a rupture with Tradition.A false premise has to produce a non traditional conclusion.
Prof. don Alberto Strumia an Italian scientist and Catholic priest is not aware that his theology is marked by an irrational philosophy and reasoning.Probably the error is innocent. No one told him about it.
Another Italian priest, who is not a speaker at this Conference, is the also a theologian and scientist.He is Prof. Stefano Visintin osb. He is the the present Rector of the Pontifical University of St.Anselm, Rome. He says that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance in our reality.None are physically visible to this physicist.So there are no objective exceptions,for him, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Prof. Giovanni Turco is one of the signatories of the Correctio Fidelis.All the signatories support heresy as orthodoxy in their acceptance of Vatican Council II (Cushingite) and their rejection in ignorance, of Vatican Councl II ( Feeneyite). They create a rupture with Tradition just like the present two popes.
The speakers are faithful Cushingites and this pleases the Left.They are non controversial. They may say that outside the Church there is no salvation and this is O.K with the Left.As long as they also refer to visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and objective examples of salvation outside the Church mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.They are 'liberal traditionalists' and can attend Catholic conferences and be speakers.
They are denying the Catholic Faith. They will not proclaim EENS ( Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) in public.Nor will they interpret the Nicene Creed and the Catechisms with rational and traditional Feeneyism.So with such a major shift in Catholic doctrine, they keep re-cycling their errors and telling us what we already know about them and their obsolete views, which are also those of the liberals and the ecclesiastics at the Vatican.-Lionel Andrades