Msgr.Nicola Bux would make a Profession of Faith with an irrational premise and inference

Msgr.Nicola Bux  interprets the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II with the New Theology.He uses an irrational premise and inference.So his conclusion would be irrational, non traditional and heretical.He has asked that Pope Francis issue a Profession of Faith.1 If Pope Francis made a Profession of Faith it would be interpreted by him and the Cushingites, with the New Theology and so would be modernism.

Similarly Cardinal Raymond Burke is conservative on some subjects but over the years he has interpreted Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the New Theology.Fr. John Hardon did the same.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider interprets Vatican Council II with the New Theology.So there is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. Then he calls for a new Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II, when the fault really lies with his irrational premise and inference.

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton and other fine apologists were all using the New Theology which came in a big way into the Church with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.Though the seeds of the error were already there in the Baltimore Catechism.

So if Msgr. Nicola Bux would make a Profession of Faith it would be with the New Theology and it would be modernism.

Similarly John Lamont and Roberto Dei Mattei mentioned the New Theology critically at one of the conferences last summer in Rome.But both of them interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechisms with the New Theology.They are not aware of it.They use the false premise and inference and do not know that this creates the New Theology.It creates the hermeneutic of rupture with the past. So their interpretation of Vatican Council II is non traditional and then they wrongly blame the Council.-Lionel Andrades

1

https://edwardpentin.co.uk/monsignor-bux-pope-francis-must-urgently-issue-profession-of-faith/

Even though Cardinal Ratzinger wrote magisterial documents with a false premise and inference we can re-interpret them without the error : Vatican Council II can be Feeneyite or Cushingite

In the last  blog post 1 I mentioned that  Pope Benedict must acknowledge that Redemptoris Missio, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus  Iesus and other Church documents like the Balamand Declaration were written with the use of a false premise and inference. This is true.

However it does not mean that we have to use the false premise and inference to interpret these Magisterial Documents. Since we can interpret Redemptoris Missio, Catechism of the Catholic Church and Dominus Iesus without the New Theology; without the irrational premise and inference.Then we are back to the old theology with these Church documents.

The orthodox passages in Redemptoris Missio, Catechism of the Catholic Church and Dominus Iesus are traditional. The unorthodox passages , refer to hypothetical cases only. So they do not contradict the orthodox passages. In this way we are left only with the old theology.

When hypothetical cases are considered hypothetical I call it Feeneyism.

When hypothetical cases are considered non hypothetical, objective people in the present times saved outside the Church, I refer to it as Cushingism or being Cushingite.

So for me Redemptoris Missio, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus etc, would be Feeneyite even though for Cardinal Ratzinger they are not Feeneyite.
 

These magisterial documents,  do not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in clear and direct language. Yet they are Feeneyite,since unorthodox passages placed by Cushingites in Vatican Council II do not contradict the Feeneyite passages. Redemptoris Missio, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Dominus Iesus were written by Cushingites. However the same text , can be interpreted with Feeneyism( hypotheticals are just hypothetical)  and the conclusion is Feeneyite ( there is no known salvation outside the Church). 

Example: Lumen Gentium 14 says the Church is necessary for salvation and mentions  the necessity of faith and baptism.This is Feeneyism.

But LG 14 also mentions being saved in invincible ignorance and the case of the unknown catechumen and this for me refers to hypothetical cases.So it is Feeneyite for me.For Cardinal Ladaria this same passage would refer to non hypothetical  and objective people saved outside the Church( BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS for him). So this is a Cushingite passage for him.

Throughout Vatican Council II there are Feeneyite  passages alongside Cushingite passages.

 We simply have to re-read the seemingly Cushingite passages, as being harmless and not contradicting the  Feeneyite passages.So the Council is Feeneyite.

They are not examples of physically visible people.They are just hypothetical cases. They are not people whom we know but unknown people. They are invisible. We know that they are not examples of salvation outside the Church.They are not practical exceptions to EENS.They cannot be practical exceptions to EENS since God has made it this way.

It is important for Catholic religious communities, organisations and bloggers to reject in public , the Cushingite interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Creeds and other Magisterial documents.They need to re-interpret them with  Feeneyism.In this way the ecclesiastics will become aware of the error.They can then correct it.-Lionel Andrades

1

 DECEMBER 26, 2018

What is the difference between the old and new theology? How is the new theology created ? : important to know

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/what-is-difference-between-old-and-new.html