Lefebvrists are Cushingites and not Feeneyites.
They interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with Cushingism.
I am a Feeneyite. I interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Feeneyism.
But for them invisible people are visible exceptions to EENS . So invisible cases of LG 8, LG 16,GS 22 etc refer to visible and known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church. They create these artificial exceptions.
For me invisible cases of LG 8,LG 16 etc cannot be objective exceptins to EENS. So for me EENS has no exceptions. There are none mentioned in Vatican Council II.
But for Archbishop Carlo Vigano, Bishop Athanasius Schneider and other Lefebvrists EENS has exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II. So Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture for them. 
But for me there is only the hermeneutic of continuity.Since there are no exceptions to EENS mentioned in the Council -text.
It is the same Vatican Council II but with two interpretations. One is rational and the other irrational.
Pope Francis chooses the irrational interpretation but he could also choose the rational interpretation in future. Then Vatican Council II would have the 'hermeneutic of continuity' with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc) for him.
Now he cites Vatican Council II with Cushingism and so with salvation outside the Church he can say that God wills a plurality of religions for salvation, since this is the teaching of Cushingite Vatican Council II for him.
The Lefebvrists are in no position to correct him. Since they do not want to switich to Feeneyite Vatican Council II.For then they would have to affirm Feeneyite EENS and this would be opposed by the SPLC and ADL.
They would also be confirming reports which state that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as a Cushingite, made a mistake.
He did not know about Vatican Council II Feneeyite.
So the interpretation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith today is also Cushingite, heretical and a rupture with Tradition.This cannot be magisterial. It is a human mistake and break with the past Magisterium.
There interpretation is not magisterial.Since they have chosen the irrational option.
If they chose to intepret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism, they would be traditional and magisterial. Since then there would be no rupture with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
The past Magisterium, before the 1930's did not use the false premise to interpret Magisterial documents. The CDF uses the false premise.So there is a calculated and created rupture with the past Magisterium.The Lefebvrists are in no position to correct the CDF. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 9, 2020
JUNE 16, 2020
Archbishop Vigano could comment upon how he supports the non Magisterial interpretation of Vatican Council II and uses the New Theology to interpret the Council. The New Theology is based upon the false premise and inference.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/06/archbishop-vigano-could-comment-upon.html
NOVEMBER 17, 2019
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment