We know of Leftist excommunications but can there be leftist canonisations too?

We know of Leftist excommunications but can there be leftist canonisations too?

There are no practical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) and so they never were  exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

Also the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a communication between two bishops and it was placed in the Denzinger by the liberal Fr. Karl Rahner s.j, before hsi term as Editor ended.Except for this Letter, which was not magisterial since it has an objective mistake in it, no Magisterial documents says BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known people saved outside the Church. This was falsely inferred by the liberal theologians.

St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and when he mentioned the man in forest in igorance, he did not say that it was a personally known person. He said that God would send a preacher to him since he was to be saved. Yet the liberals, and the traditionalists, interpret Aquinas' man in the forest as being a known non Catholic  saved outside the Church without ' faith and baptism'.

Now we know that there are no literal exceptions to the dogma EENS and neither did the Church Councils, Catechisms, popes and saints state that the BOD, BOB and I.I refer to personally known people saved outside the Church. They could speculate and hope but obviously no one could see someone in Heaven saved without 'faith and baptism'.

So there were no objective exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney and yet he was excommunicated. None of the popes from Pius XII supported him in public.Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Lefebvrists and the traditionalists of that time were Cushingites. This was about the time of the creation of the new state of Israel.

So Fr.Leonard Feeney's  excommunication was a Leftist one for me.

Rome( the Vatican) assumed that hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were objectively visible. I call this way od looking at things Cushingism.

For me hypothetical and theoretical cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I are simply hypothetical.Invisible people are invisible. I call this way of looking at this issue, Feeneyism.

The popes were Cushingite.The CDF Prefects are still Cushingite.Cushingism is irrational. It says invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are objectively visible in the present times. So this is the reason why Catholics commonly say every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation EXCEPT FOR, those saved with BOD, BOB and I.I.

When Archbishop Lefebvre rejected Vatican Council II, since it was a rupture with Tradition, he was correct. Vatican Council II Cushingite ( invisible cases are visible) is a rupture with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. 

Instead of explaining to him that Vatican Council II could also be interpreted with Feeneyism ( invisible non Catholics are invisible) they excommunicated him.

Until today no correction is made for political reasons.

For political reasons in March 2016 Pope Benedict said that EENS today is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. He said with Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) there was a development. So he questioned the need for Mission. Since with Cushingism there is known salvation outside the Church and so why must non Catholics convert into the Church as members for salvation ?

Similarly for political reasons Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.j,  Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF)on March 1, 2018 at the Placuet Deo Conference said that the Church no more teaches that it has an there is exclusiveness and superiority  in salvation. He cited Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth). So in other words, for him,  LG 8 refers to known people saved outside the Church .So the old exclusivist ecclesiology becomes obsolete.

Both of them could have said that EENS and Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism ( invisible non Catholics saved are invisible).There would be no rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church. But probably to please a political groups they maintained the deception.They wanted the hermeneutic of rupture.

They both were quiet when the Colombian bishops excommunicated Jose Galet and when the Archbishop of Palermo also a Cushingite, excommunicated Fr. Alessandro Minutella.Both of them were following their conscience as Pope Francis has sinners can follow their conscience. He rejects faith and moral teachings and suggests following ones conscience. Why cannot Galet and Minutella do the same? Why must they be excommunicate ?

Since for political reasons it was necessary.

So when Pope Paul VI who was a Cushingite interpreted EENS and Vatican Council II heretically and irrationally is canonised, there probably was pressure from ecclesiastical Masonry or the Lodges.Even Cushingite Pope John XXIII  interpreted EENS heretically.They both are automatically excommunicated. With their Cushingite irrationality they have changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed and reinterpreted the Catechisms wrongly.

So we know of Leftist excommunications.Did we also have leftist canonisations  last Sunday?

-Lionel Andrades