Monday, July 2, 2018

Repost : Factual error approved by popes

APRIL 1, 2014

Factual error approved by popes

'10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22)...'-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 
 
Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, cardinals and archbishops have not objected to this passage from  Christianity and the World Religions by the International Theological Commission 1997.  
 
There is a factual mistake here.
 
'the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16...')
It is a possibility of salvation ,true, but it is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. A possibility is not an exception.
If a possibility was an exception then we could physically see the deceased saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16). This passage above implies that we can see the deceased now saved in Heaven for them to be exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston. It is a fact that we cannot see the dead. 
Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, the present Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican approved this passage.
 
67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.- Christianity and the World Religions 1997,International Theological Commission

and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation.
Again it is being implied that possibilities of salvation known only to  God are personally known to us in the  present times.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and we do not know any one how is going to be condemned or saved, who 'knew' about the Church or was in invincible ignorance.Possibilities are not known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation. Every one needs to enter the Church for salvation in 2014 and not only those who know. Those who know or do not know will be decided by God.
 
The same objective error is made in the ITC's The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized'. 

59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.
When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.
 
When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”. -The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized', International Theological Commission,2007 
 
Being saved in invincible ignorance is a possibility it is not a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. These cases-saved are known only to God so they are irrelevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. There is confusion here between what is objective and subjective, visible and invisible, known in realilty or hypotethetical.
The popes and the ITC have assumed hypothetical cases are personally known exceptions. This is factually incorrect.-Lionel Andrades


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/with-all-due-respect-to-cardinal-joseph.html#links


The Holy See
back up
Search
riga


INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED
*





http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/itc-documents-christianity-and-world.html#links


The Holy See
back up
Search
riga

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
(1997)

PRELIMINARY NOTE

Repost : Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism is still the teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II

 APRIL 1, 2014

Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism is still the teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II

Jabba:
'10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).'-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions
 
Lionel:
Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism is still the teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II since we do not know of any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The traditional teaching still stands.
It is the liberal theologians who have not acknowledged AG 7 which says all need to convert with 'faith and baptism' . They have also assumed that LG 16 is a visible, known exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. If this was assumed by also Pope Pius XII then he made a factual mistake too.
 
However in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 Pope Pius XII supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine/dogma when he refers to ‘the dogma’ the ‘infallible teaching’ and says it should be understood and interpreted as the Church does. For centuries the church taught ‘exclusivist ecclesiolcentrism’ and the text of ‘the dogma’ does not mention any exceptions nor considers the baptism of desire an exception.
-Lionel Andrades
 
http://protectthepope.com/?p=10239

Repost : There is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Feeneyism

 APRIL 3, 2014

There is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Feeneyism

Feeneyism is the official teaching of the Catholic Church unless one assumes implicit for us baptism of desire is explicit for us.


According to Feeneyism  every one needs to enter the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' and there are no exceptions.
 
According to Feeneyism  the baptism of desire is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
According to Cushingism  every one does not need to enter the Catholic Church with faith and baptism  in 2014 and there are exceptions.
 
According to Cushingism  the baptism of desire is an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 
 
According to Feeneyism Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) is not an exception to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism)  and the dogma on exclusive salvation. Vatican Council II is not confusing.
 
According to Cushingism Lumen Gentium 16  is an exception.Vatican Council II contradicts itself.
 
Feeneyism says there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Cushingism says there are exceptions. Cushingism is heresy.
 
The Society of St.Pius X, Fischer More College and other traditionalists  have been using Cushingism. For liberals Cushingism is the basis for liberalism  and dissent with reference to Vatican Council II.
 
Vatican Council II  and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949  of Pope Pius XII, in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission, are interpreted according to Cushingism. The ITC papers were approved by Pope Benedict XVI.
 
Pope Francis expects the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate to accept Vatican Council II according to Cushingism, only then will they be allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in Rome.
The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate  could end the dead lock by announcing that they interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents  according to Feeneyism. So they affirm Vatican Council II and Tradition ( the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Syllabus of Errors etc).
 
Similarly Michael King, the President of Fischer-More College, USA  could announce that they affirm Vatican Council II according to Feeneyism . He can ask Bishop Michael Olson, the bishop of Fort Worth, and the FSSP priests there, to also do the same.
 
The SSPX could clarify that in a discussion on the subject of the baptism of desire, there could be confusion over invisible for us  baptism of desire and visible to us  baptism of desire and that invisible for us  baptism of desire, is their rational choice.
 
They also need to point out the factual error on the website of the International Theological Commission. The same error is there on the SSPX website under the subject Feeneyism. The SSPX is critical of Feeneyism since for the SSPX, Feeneyism  refers to the rejection of explicit for us baptism of desire.
-Lionel Andrades

Photo: Fr.Leonard Feeney- now at the centre of two  interpretations of Vatican Council II.

http://www.marymediatrix.com/religious-life/friars.html

Repost : Pressure on SSPX priests to say Dismas is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

APRIL 6, 2014

Pressure on SSPX priests to say Dismas is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

There is pressure being brought on the priests of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) in Italy  to say Dismasthe Good Thief, was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?. 
 
The SSPX leadership  are in a doctrinal crisis  and are clutching onto any available straw to stay afloat.They do not want to admit that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the  SSPX bishops made an objective error - and Vatican Council II is really traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities and churches, when the false premise is not being used.
 
 Since they do not want to say that there are no exceptions to Feeneyism, the SSPX priests are emphasizing  the case of Dismas, who went to Heaven allegedly without the baptism of water.
 
The SSPX priests in Rome to whom I have spoken to  know there are no Dismas' in 2014 who are visible to us in real life.So 'Dismas in 2014'  cannot be an exception to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
The SSPX do not want to  affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salusaccording to Fr.Leonard Feeney  whom they have criticized in books and on the Internet.
 
On the official website of the SSPX, there is a section 'Feeneyism'  in which the SSPX priests  assume cases of the baptism of desire are visible to us for them to be exceptions and relevant to the dogma on salvation.
 
They do not make the distinction between implicit baptism of desire and explicit baptism of desire.It is always explicit for them.
 
Recently the District Superior of the SSPX, Italy on Italian television indicated that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions.He implied that LG 16 (invincible ignorance)  etc was  not implicit but explicit  for us, to be an exception  to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional teaching on other religions.
 
Catholics, non SSPX members, who have affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus have often come under strong criticism from the political Left. The SSPX avoids being threatened under the Anti-Semitism and other leftist laws.
 
They are not affirming  the dogma according to Feeneyism and are interpreting Vatican Council II in accord with the politically accepted version. Even the Left interprets Vatican Council II as a break with the past and they use the false premise in the interpretation.So these deceased-saved become exceptions to Feeneyism.
 
The SSPX have removed material from websites  to avoid the Anti Semitism charge.They are now suggesting that there are known Dismas' in 2014 who are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
Without Dismas in 2014 Vatican Council II would be traditional and they would have to admit that they were in error all these years. -Lionel Andrades

Since for Ludwig Ott there are exceptions to EENS,the old Catechisms would also be a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology.It would contradict an ecumenism of return and no salvation outside the Church


Since for Ludwig Ott the baptism of desire(BOD) , baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I)  are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS,the Catechisms of Trent, Baltimore and Pius X would also be a rupture with the past ecclesiology on ecumenism and outside the Church no salvation etc.Since when they refer to BOD, BOB and I.I, they would be interpreted as referring not to invisible cases but known people saved outside the Catholic Church.


CATECHISMS AND VATICAN COUNCIL II A RUPTURE WITH THE PAST FOR SCHNEIDER AND FASTIGGI
It is the same with Bishop Athansius Schneider and Dr.Robert Fastiggi.Not only would the Catechisms be a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology because of the false premise but even Vatican Council II has to be a rupture with the past.This would be normal for Cushingites.
So they interpret LG 8 etc as being a visible example of salvation outside the Church.Vatican Council II is interpreted as a rupture with the past ecclesiology.So there are new doctrines in the Church on salvation.

BISHOP SCHNEIDER AND PROF. ROBERT FASTIGGI ARE CUSHINGITES AND LUDWIG OTT IS NOT A FEENEYITE
Last month it was announced that  Baronius Press released  a new edition of Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Although based on the original translation by Dr. Patrick Lynch it has been "fully revised and updated" by Dr. Robert Fastiggi. The Foreword was written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

BOD, BOB AND I.I WOULD ALSO CONTRADICT THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS FOR SANBORN AND PIVARUNAS
Similarly for the sedevacantist bishops Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunas, BOD,BOB and I.I are a rupture with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So BOD, BOB and I.I would also contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on ecumenism.The old ecumenism of return would have practical  exceptions.
The sedevacantist bishops may criticize Fr.Leonard Feeny on EENS and will not affirm 'the strict interpretation' of EENS, like the Jesuits in the Middle Ages, but they still use the same faulty reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally.So the Council is a rupture with EENS(Feeneyite) for them.But without Cushingism as a philosophy and theology the Council supports Fr. Leonard Feeney.
VATICAN COUNCIL II SUPPORTS FR. LEONARD FEENEY
Without the irrational premise, without Cushingite theology; the New Theology, Vatican Council II supports Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Also the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) interpreted with Feeneyism would be in harmony with Vatican Council II( Feeneyite), EENS( Feeneyite), the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite) etc.

TRADITIONAL MISSION
There would be mission/evangelisation, knowing that all non Catholics in 2018 are oriented to Hell unless they enter the Catholic Church with faith and baptism.There are no known exceptions.
It would also mean that all who have died as non Catholics are in Hell without faith and baptism and there are no known exceptions for us human beings. Faith and the baptism of water is the norm, the ordinary means of salvation.

CHURCH TELLS US THAT ALL NON CATHOLICS ARE IN HELL
So the Church tells us that all non Catholics are in Hell (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, the Council of Florence etc on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church(845,846,1257 etc).
Bishop Schneider and Dr.Robert Fastiggi  are not willing to affirm this in public.They are comfortable with Vatican Council II (Cushingite)-Lionel Andrades



Repost : Did Ludwig Ott infer all this?

 NOVEMBER 7, 2016

Did Ludwig Ott infer all this?

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
In Response to a Comment on The Remnant Newspaper.
I read The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott a long time back.I do not have a copy here with me.
What does he say?
1.Does he say that there is connection between the baptism of desire and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus; all need to receieve the baptism of water in the Catholic Church with no exception?
2.Does he say that the baptism of desire is explicit? It is personally known in the present times?
3.Does he say that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water?
4.Does he infer that the baptism of desire and baptism of blood must always exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church or always include it?
5.Does he say that in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued, there were known cases of the baptism of desire with or without the baptism of water?
If he does not say all this, then is this  your inference ? You infer all this like the liberal theologians did in 1949?
For you it is as follows ?:
1.There is a connection between the baptism of desire and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since there are personally known cases, for you, in the present times, saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.You know of exceptions to EENS.
2.The baptism of desire is explicit for you, objectively seen in personal cases.So it is relevant to EENS.They are visible exceptions to EENS.
3.Since the baptism of desire is visible in personal cases for you, it is something tangible like the baptism of water and so it can be repeatedly given to many, like the baptism of water.
4.The baptism of desire must always exclude the baptism of water,this is what God chose in the past and also for the future in every case of this kind.
5.In 1949 they knew of people who died with the baptism of desire and were saved and are now in Heaven, without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades

Repost : Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is Cushingite, it overlooks an irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Prof Robert Fastiggi also use the false premise to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I and Magisterial documents to create a schism with the past popes

JUNE 1, 2018

Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is Cushingite, it overlooks an irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Prof Robert Fastiggi also use the false premise to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I and Magisterial documents to create a schism with the past popes

Luwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogmauses Cushingite philosophy and theology.So it assumes that unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), as it was known to the popes and saints of the past.
For the Magisterium in the 16th century, EENS was Feeneyite and not Cushingite, since BOD, BOB and I.l were Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
So this is a theological and doctrinal flaw in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma and it,like the Arian heresy of the past,  has spread throughout the Catholic Church today.
It is also with Cushingism that Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Prof. Robert Fastiggi interpret Vatican Council II and EENS.
Prof. Fastiggi is critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney. But Fr.Feeney did not say that he could see invisible people on earth, he refused to say that people in Heaven were objective exceptions on earth to the traditional interpretation of EENS. He did  not interpret BOD,BOB and I.I with Cushingism,like Prof. Fastiggi, Ralph Martin and Phillip Blosser and the rest of the faculty at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, USA.
In 1949 the Holy Office made a mistake when it assumed invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. It also created a schism with the past popes. The Cushingite error was repeated in Vatican Council II by Council Fathers and Cardinal Ratzinger upheld the mistake in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Balamand Declaration, Code of Canon Law (1983) and two theological papers of the International Theological Commission.It was a direct attack on the dogma EENS with the use of an irrational premise to create a non traditional conclusion.
Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is used in religions formation by Catholic traditionalists and liberals.
Like the apologists John Hardon, Monsgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton and Fr. William Most, Ott did not know that BOD, BOB and I.I were being interpreted by the liberal theologians as a rupture with Tradition.They did this by confusing what is invisible as visible, implicit as explicit and hypothetical as being defacto and objective known in the present times.So their narrative was that Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura and the Catechisms of Pius X and Trent contradicted Feeneyite EENS when BOD, BOB and I.I were mentioned. But this was false. Since BOD, BOB and I.I can only be hypothetical. This is a given. This was how St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine understood it.
Fr.John Hardon used this flawed reasoning also in the interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994)  and Vatican Council II.
For me, the Catechism(1994) and Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism, that is , without the false premise.So the conclusion is not a rupture with Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades

From Rorate Caeili
A few weeks ago Baronius Press released what it describes as a new edition of Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Although based on the original translation by Dr. Patrick Lynch it has been "fully revised and updated" by Dr. Robert Fastiggi, apparently in the light of Ott's 1969 German text of the Fundamentals. The preface to the new edition by Dr. Fastiggi -- full text on the Baronius Press website -- describes at length the revisions made to the translation. In the preface, Fastiggi notes that "(w)hile Fr. Ott made some revisions in 1969, it would be wrong to find in these any notable change in his theological posture from the decade prior to Vatican II. Ludwig Ott always remained faithful to the Church’s perennial Magisterium, and he is careful to distinguish theological speculations from the constant teaching of the Church"

For this edition of the Fundamentals the Foreword came from no other than Bishop Athanasius Schneider. The full text, as provided on the Baronius Press website:


Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma has proven to be an indispensable guide to Catholic doctrine since it was first published in the 1950’s. Whether in the original language or in its French and English translations, it has been favoured by generations of readers because of its rare combination of relative brevity with comprehensiveness. I congratulate Baronius Press and Dr. Robert Fastiggi for bringing out this comprehensively revised translation of the last edition of the Fundamentals.


We live at a time of grave doctrinal confusion when the sheep are often left without shepherds. Against the dangers of doctrinal ambiguity and the loss of clarity in moral matters, the faithful are called more than ever to seek to know their faith, so they can defend it and pass it on to their children. Catechism is necessary, but perhaps now it is not enough to only know one’s Catechism. The subtlety of the many contemporary errors assaulting the faith practically require from the ordinary faithful today a good understanding of Catholic doctrine that is not separated from its traditional and immutable roots. For this task, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is eminently suitable. It presents the immutable truths of Catholic theology backed by the teachings of the Magisterium in the past two millennia, not the latest speculations of fashionable and media-friendly theologians who in reality want another religion. It uses language that is simple and clear – virtues often forgotten today – and is brief enough to fit into one volume. May it help the light of faith shine clearer and brighter for countless Catholic faithful, may it help them live the faith in all its purity. And to all who read this book I grant my blessing.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider, O.R.C.,
Titular Bishop of Celerina
Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

 https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/06/for-record-baronius-press-revised.html



From the tags/labels in the right hand bar 











































Lionel Andrades

Repost : Ludwig Ott is in a rupture with the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century and Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441

JUNE 2, 2018

Ludwig Ott is in a rupture with the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century and Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Hardcover (Dark Navy Leather)
Ludwig Ott made a mistake.
His Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma held up by some Catholics while they kneel, has an objective error.This was not noticed by Bishop Athanasius Schneider who has given us the stamp of approval.
But how can you be a Catholic if you do not approve of Ludwig Ott it may be asked ? 
In general Ott is correct.But at one point, a very important point, he made a mistake and the whole Church has blindly followed him.
Where was the mistake?
Like Schneider and Fastiggi, Ott refers to the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invncible ignorance(I.I).No problem here. I read the book a long time back.It was not Feeneyite.
I affirm the BOD, BOB and I.I too.We all agree here.
But when Ott refers to BOD, BOB and I.I, like the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, he has in his mind real people saved, who are not Catholics. It is as if he knows them by name.
So of course these cases would be objective exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and so there is a new theology. It is outside the Church there is salvation.
When I refer to BOD, BOB and I.I,  in my mind I simply picture hypothetical cases. Theoretical possibilites known only to God. Definitely not real people on earth , for me.
Ludwig Ott, Bishop Schneider and Dr.Fastiggi have real people in mind, who are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.For them there are only invisible cases who are irrelevant to EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Ott slipped and accepted the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which wrongly inferred  that invisible cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I were visible exceptions to EENS and this had become magisterial.False.
It was ecclesiastical but not Magisterial.Since Magisterium  means the teaching authority of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit .Here we have an objective mistake.The Holy Spirit cannot make a mistake.
So to assume invisible people are visible, hypothetical cases are objective and that there are known people saved outside the Church even though there are none, I call all this Cushingism.
It is the opposite of just accepting hypothetical cases as being only hypothetical, which I call Feeneyism.
Originally Feeneyite, Pope Pius XII did not defend Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.With his characteristic silence he supported Cardinal Cushing.Before him the popes were all Feeneyite. The saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine did not assume that BOD, BOB and I.I referred to known people on earth.
But Schneider and Fastiggi are Cushingites as are the sedevacantis bishops, Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunus, or the liberal cardinals Koch, Kasper and Marx.
So all of us say we are Catholic and that we affirm all the teachings of the Church and in a sense this is true.But I know every one else is a Cushingite and I am not.
I read Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and every one else does so with Cushingism.
I refer to BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to invisible cases and other Catholics do not do so.
I interpret all the Catechisms( Trent, Pius X etc) with Feeneyism when they refer to BOD,BOB and I.I but Schneider and Fastiggi do not do the same.For them there is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.But not for me.
The Nicene Creed means something for me and something else for all of them.The Profession of Faith and Renewal of Vows is relative now, since most Catholics use irrational Cushingism to interpret the Creeds.
I say all non Catholics who are dead are in Hell and they are not sure if this is true.I say this based on the teachings of the Catholic Church interpreted with Feeneyism. They deny it based on the teachings of the Church, interpreted with Cushingism.
I say all non Catholics on earth in 2018 are oriented to Hell unless they become members of the Catholic Church with faith and baptism(AG 7). They are not sure.Since for Cushingites, LG 8, LG 16 etc would contradict AG 7 and EENS.
For me Cushngite Ott is in a rupture with Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 on outside the Church there is no salvation.This Church Council did not cite exceptions of BOD,BOB and I.I.This is something obvious. How could they physically see people in Heaven saved outside the Church? How could BOD, BOB and I.I be practical exceptions to EENS ?
Ludwig Ott is in a rupture with the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.Since like the liberal theologians he mixes up what is physically visible as being visible.The liberal theologians who supported this rupture in  philosophy and reasoning, include Rahner, Ratzinger, Kung and Ladaria.They used a false premise to break with  with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus etc).Even today after they have been informed they will not admit their mistake.
Today it may be asked by those who do not understand me, "How can all of them be wrong and you be correct?"
It makes sense. I am only a lay man with no academic degrees in philosophy and theology and I have not written a single book.
But what I have to say, in fact, all that I am basically saying is that I cannot see people in Heaven. I physically cannot see people on earth saved with the baptism of desire. I cannot meet people on earth saved in invincible ignorance with or without the baptism of water and I believe that this is the experience of people in general.
I have priests supporting me. An Archbishop and a well known lay apologist too.There is also a Rector of a pontifical university in Rome today, who assures me that he too cannot see any one saved with BOD, BOB or I.I. 
We cannot see invisible people. This is a given and  I do not need an academic degree to claim this.
For those who think it over there are no known cases in 2018 of someone saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) inside or outside the Church. We do not know of any one outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, where the true Church of Christ could allegedly subsist (LG 8).Yet for Cardinal Ladaria on March 1,2018, LG 8 was an exception to EENS. He made this dumb claim in public and got away with it.
Then on March 2016 Pope Benedict was testing our intelligence.He said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century and there was 'a development'.He meant Cushingite Vatican Council II was a development.. Of course Cushingite Vatican Council II would be a rupture with Feeneyite EENS. This is obvious. But he was not going to affirm Feeneyite EENS and Feeneyite Vatican Council II , like me.He chose heresy and a schism with the past popes.He rejected a rational and traditional option.
So when they cite Cushingite Ludwig Ott, and you know that Vatican Council II, like BOD, BOB and I.I could have been interpreted with Feeneyism, what do you do? Some would laugh. Others would see a serious mistake, an ecclesiastical mistake, which is not magisterial.-Lionel Andrades




 JUNE 1, 2018

Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is Cushingite, it overlooks an irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Prof Robert Fastiggi also use the false premise to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I and Magisterial documents to create a schism with the past popes

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/06/ludwig-otts-fundamentals-of-catholic.html