Taylor Marshall interprets St.Thomas Aquinas with Cushingism and not Feeneyism and so there is a rupture with Tradition for him.

Taylor Marshall interprets St.Thomas Aquinas with Cushingism and not Feeneyism and so there is a rupture with Tradition for him.Also there would be confusion over Vatican Council II.His participation in the Roundtable Discussion on the Eve of the Pan Amazon Synod will contribute to the confusion which already exists among the participants.

Let me clarify.

Cushingism in philosophy refers to assuming hypothetical cases as being non hypothetical. For example the baptism of desire is a hypothetical case.It  could be mistaken as an objective and personally known person saved outside the Church.

Feeneyism in philosophy refers to seeing hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical.So being saved in invincible ignorance would refer to personally unknown cases in 2019. Since only God could know who is in Heaven on a general and personal scale.

Cushingism as a theology refers to assuming hypothetical cases( baptism of desire etc) are explicit and objective examples of salvation outside the Church. So the New Theology says outside the Church there is known salvation.

Feeneyism as a theology refers to hypothetical cases just being hypothetical( baptism of desire etc) and so they are not explicit and practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the old past ecclesiology, ecumenism of return. Outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.

So when St. Thomas Aquinas mentions the man in the forest in invincible ignorance or someone saved with desire for the baptism of water,Taylor Marshall interprets it with Cushingism. Otherwise he would have to affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.

So BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of EENS for him. 

Aquinas would be contradicting Fr. Leonard Feeney, for him.Since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to explicit cases. Invisible people cannot be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.

Aquinas would also be contradicting himself when he supports the dogma EENS and yet also mentions invincible ignorance etc.

Similarly when Taylor Marshall  interprets Vatican Council  it is with Cushingite philosophy and theology.This is a heretical and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II which he accepts.If he chose Feeneyite philosophy and theology there would be no rupture with the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. But then he would be a Feeneyite on EENS.

I have written to him in the past but he does not respond.

He does not want to affirm Vatican Council II and EENS with Feeneyism. Since he allows Pope Francis to interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism, the pope believes that if Vatican Council II has changed theology and ecclesiology( with Cushingism), he can change all the teachings of the Church.-Lionel Andrades

https://taylormarshall.com/