When those who support the writings of Fr. Denis Fahey, interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Cushingism ; with the False Premise, they really are negating the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation

 How can we talk about the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political life  and then interpret the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechisms of the Council of Trent and Pius X and the Athanasius Creed with the False Premise which negates the proclamation ? We affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King which is linked to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, when we interpret Magisterial Documents with the Rational Premise.

Since if for example, 29 C ( invincible ignorance) in the Catechism of Pope Pius X contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( 24Q and 27 Q) and there is alleged known salvation outside the Church of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water and Catholic faith – then why proclaim Jesus in the Church as the center of all politics, it is asked?People are being saved without Jesus and the Church since outside the Church there is salvation according to the New Theology it is said -and the New Theology is used by the Lefebvrists, Thucs and liberals to interpret Vatican Council II.

So when those who support the writings of Fr. Denis Fahey, interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Cushingism ; with the False Premise, they really are negating the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation.

Instead if they interpreted the Catechisms and Creeds with the Rational Premise, with Feeneyism ( invisible cases are simply invisible in the present times, there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire), then outside the Church there is no salvation, according to the old exclusivist theology not contradicted by Vatican Council II ( rational).So the priority once again is Traditional Feeneyite Mission and the necessity of the Government being Catholic, to promote the one true religion (UR 3),the new people of God(NA 4) and save souls outside the Catholic Church from going to Hell,without faith and the baptism of water (AG 7/CCC 846).

Michael Davies did not notice the False Premise in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO). So he was interpreting the Creeds and Catechisms with the False Premise to reject the dogma EENS.So theologically he had made the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King, which he supported in his writings, obsolete.

Those who accept the False Premise of the LOHO, reject the Old Theology, which says outside the Church there is no salvation.They also re-interpret the Nicene Creed irrationally and reject the Athanasius Creed, supporting mortal sins of faith.The Creeds are de fide teachings which are obligatory for all Catholics to affirm - but if there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II ( Rational and Irrational) then there are two interpretations of the Creeds.

We can affirm the Four Marks of the Church but with two different interpretations, one rational and the other rational and we will have two different conclusions, one traditional and the other non traditional. -Lionel Andrades