There are two concepts here, Cushingism
and Feeneyism and The Red is not an exception for the Blue. They both point to
the same thing. This is a discovery. It is seminal.
Cushingism says that invisible people
are visible. Feeneyism says that invisible people are invisible. These are two
names I have chosen, Cushingism and Feeneyism.Others can choose other names to express this concept.
When I refer to The Red not being an
exception for the Blue, in Vatican Council II, I am referring to Cushingite passages
in red which are not practical exceptions for Feeneyite passages in blue.
I have marked the Cushingite passages in
red and the Feeneyite, orthodox passages in blue.
CHURCH FATHERS WERE ALWAYS FEENEYITE
Over the centuries the Church Fathers,
popes and saints were always Feeneyite. But the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office
to the Archbishop of Boston brought Cushingism into the Church in an official
and big way.
The 1949 LOHO, issued by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now a Dicastery, interpreted the
baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) with Cushingism and
not Feeneyism.
When St. Thomas Aquinas referred to the
man in the forest in invincible ignorance who would be saved, he was referring to
a Feeneyite case. It was someone invisible and hypothetical, who was not a practical exception
for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which he upheld.
THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS ALWAYS FEENEYITE
When the saints in the Middle Ages
referred to the baptism of desire they were referring to a Feeneyite , baptism
of desire i.e. someone who was invisible and whoM they considered being
invisible. So the saints in the 16th century, for example, affirmed
the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, with invisible and not visible
cases of the BOD and I.I.
But the 1949 LOHO rejected the strict interpretation
of EENS by interpreting invisible cases of BOD and I.I as being visible
exceptions for traditional EENS. Their approach was Cushingite.
CUSHINGISM FROM THE 1949 LOHO WAS ACCEPTED AT VATICAN COUNCIL II: THIS WAS NOT THE DEPOSIT OF THE FAITH
So this Cushingism was accepted at
Vatican Council II by just about everyone, Rahner, Ratzinger, Ottaviani,
Lefebvre….
Pope Paul VI and the popes who followed
chose Cushingism and not Feeneyism.
But Cushingism is not the Deposit of the
Faith. The Deposit of the Faith is only Feeneyism. So I can interpret Vatican
Council II and other Magisterial Documents only with Feeneyism and there will
be a continuity with the past theology.
KWASNIEWSKI IS A CUSHINGITE
The Lefebvrists still use Cushingism and
think it is the deposit of the faith. Here there is an interview of Peter Kwasniewski
by John Henry Weston. Kwasniewski says that the deposit of the faith does not
change.
This is false. He is a Cushingite and I
am a Feeneyite on Vatican Council II. It would be the same for the Creeds,
Councils, Catechisms etc. Kwasniewski interprets all the Catechisms with
Cushingism and I choose Feeneyism.
So this is not the same faith.
Archbishop Victor Fernandez must
interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism only. This is being honest. Cushingites
use a False Premise ( invisible cases of LG 16 etc are visible). This is a
dishonest way to reject Tradition and the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.
Pope Francis and all the cardinals can only be Feeneyite on Vatican Council II, the Creeds, EENS, Councils and Catechisms.-Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment