There is not going to be a Restoration with Cushingism.Mattei and Ferrara are part of the problem. So is Whispers of Restoration and 1Peter5

Whispers of Restoration should have an article on Vatican Council II( Feeneyite). I have said it a few times. There is no  comment from them.They are another traditionalist Cushingite website.They sell books written by Chris Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei who base their understanding of Vatican Council II and EENS upon the  upon the heresy in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).There is no comment coming from them or from others from the Lefbrivist school of traditionalists.A few years have pased and they have no opinion on this issue.

Can the baptism of desire have two interpretations? No answer.

Can there be two interpretations of Vatican Council II? No answer.


ONE WAY ONLY

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has been teaching heresy when it says every one does not need to be a member of the Catholic Church, for salvation.Since the Letter reasons  wrongly that invisible and unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are objective and practical exceptions to the de fide teaching, on all needing to be a member of the Church for salvation( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).How can invisible cases of non Catholics be an an exception to traditional EENS according to the old catechisms? Yet this is how Ferrara and Mattei reason.So they have nothing to say. This is how they reasoned for 50 years.

They are not allowed to think in any other way.

1PETER5 SERVES ONLY CUSHINGISM

It's the same story on the website 1Peter5 and traditionalist bloggers.The only food they serve at their tables is Cushingite.No choice.They interpret all magisterial documents in only one way.

Someone said ,"This is what the Church teaches ".But the Church also supports Vatican Council II (Cushingite) so why do they reject it?

If they feel obliged to follow Pius XII they why not also John XXIII and Paul VI ?

The interpretation of Vatican Council II according to the Left and the present two popes is heretical.It is the same with EENS.

The website Whispers of Restoration presents itself as being traditionalist but they support the official and liberal heresy on salvation. If they avoid the LOHO mistake it's a new Vatican Council II.It would not be the traditionalism of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops who supported Cardinal Richard Cushing and Pope Pius XII.

The theology of the websites Whispers of Restoration and 1Peter5 is based on LOHO.It is irrational.They can allegedly see people in Heaven and on earth saved without the baptism of water.This is also the interpretation of the Masons.The LOHO mistake is used to create a rupture with Tradition(EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).

We have to reject the second part of the LOHO, which is irrational and non traditional,and then we can have a traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Today's 'traditionalists' are not really traditional especially the Lefebvrist school.Since they are in a rupture with the old ecclesiology of the Church which was Feeneyite and is expressed in the traditional Catechisms available on the website Whispers of Restoration.

They are in a rupture with EENS and the past ecclesiology since BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS for them.

FR.CEKADA POLITICALLY CORRECT
I think of Fr. Anthony Cekada who now knows that there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I in the present times and there were none in the past.But he keeps repeating his old line on 'Feeneyism',since it is politically correct.He does not have it in him to apologize and correct himself and others on this issue.

If he announces that he has started to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Feeneyism, in which hypothetical cases are just hypothetical and not objective exceptions to EENS,  the Left may not allow him to teach.It is the same with Bishop Donald Sanborn who has politically correct articles on Feeneyism(according to the Left) on line.So their sedevacantist seminary and that of the 'Novus Ordo' seminaries in Florida,which they criticize  have the same Cushingite approach to Vatican Council II etc.There is no difference in theology, new doctrines and worldly prudence among both groups there.So they are given the mandatum to teach from the bishops and the local secular authorities.They have compromised on doctrine and theology in real life.

It was the same at the recent Lepanto Foundation Conference in Rome when the New Theology was being criticized by the speakers, who in reality use the New Theology, Cushingism, to interpret Vatican Council II, the Catechisms and EENS.Roberto dei Mattei and John Lamont like Fr. Anthony Cekada remain politically correct with the Left.All is well. It is as if they use the LOHO mistake to stay alive.

Similarly it seems difficult for Louis Verrecchio to say that UR 3 in Vatican Council II refers to a hypothetical case.I e-mailed him the correction.This was not the first time. There is no comment from him, for or against. It's as if he does not understand.

UR 3 refers to a hypothetical and theoretical cases for us and not someone practically seen in Heaven, saved as a Protestant in his religion.What's so difficult to understand about this?
He will continue to interpret UR 3 as being a non Catholic who has been saved outside the Church and is known personally to him. So of course it becomes a rupture with the dogma EENS. 

Roberto dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing about the difference between Cushingism and Feeneyism( according to L.A) in the interpretation of the Council.The website Whispers of Restoration is promoting these books.

There is not going to be a Restoration with Cushingism. Mattei and Ferrara are part of the problem. So is Whispers of Restoration and 1Peter5.

-Lionel Andrades