Parish priest agrees with me. There are no visible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in the present times

Yesterday I spoke with Father Paulo Boumis, the parish priest at the church San Agapito, in Rome. He had no objections when I said that the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) referred to invisible cases. They are always hypothetical.He agreed with me. 

This point is central in my writing. 

So he agrees with me when I say that the BOD and I.I are not exceptions for the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

In 2003 I was living at the Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity (contemplative) home for men, which is in this parish. At that time I believed in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I knew that this teaching could not be changed. Yet  Lumen Gentium 16  contradicted it. So EENS was obsolete in Rome for Cardinal Ratzinger.

Over time, with the help of Jesus, Our Lady and my  Guardian Angel, I had an insight.This was was confirmed by a priest. I realized that LG 14, LG 16 etc, were always hypothetical. So the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney (LOHO), made a mistake. The BOD and I.I do not contradict Feeneyite EENS.

Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Bea, Balthazar, Lefebvre and Kung made a mistake when they did not correct the error in the 1949 LOHO. Instead they repeated it at Vatican Council II. It seems as if they wanted to do away with the dogma EENS, in any way possible.

For me, there was nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS.There were no exceptions for the EENS of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).

    HIS CATECHESIS IS A RUPTURE WITH THE PAST MINE IS A CONTINUITY

So I was telling Fr. Paulo that when he has his catechesis for adults in the parish this month, he will interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS. In my catechesis, the  the Council has a continuity with EENS and the rest of Tradition. For him LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc would refer to 1) physically visible cases; 2) known people saved outside the Church and 3) practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc.It is only with this irrationality that he could create a break with Tradition. 

For me LG 8,14,16 etc would refer to invisible cases, unknown and invisible people and so they are not exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism, the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

ITNERPRETING VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH FEENEYISM OR CUSHINGISM

To get a handle on this concept and explain it more easily, I called, confusing invisible cases as being visible, Cushingism.Fr. Paulo was a Cushingite like the popes from Paul VI to Francis. When invisible cases are seen as just being invisible, I call it Feeneyism. I interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and not Cushingism.I realize that I am the only one in the parish interpreting Vatican Council II rationally.The others in the parish interpret Vatican Council II irrationally like the popes and the Prefects of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith ( formerly CDF), Vatican.

THE PARISH PRIEST INTERPRETS MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS IRRATIONALLY

I informed the parish priest that I was affirming all Magisterial Documents  which I interpreted rationally ( invisible people are invisible, LG 16 etc refer to invisible cases in 2023).While he accepted all Magisterial Documents and interpreted them with irrationally. 

POPE PIUS XII NOT MAGISTERIAL ON BOD AND I.I- INTERPRETATION

The 1949 LOHO was not Magisterial when it projected BOD and I.I as being exceptions for EENS. I can accept the first part of LOHO which affirmed traditional EENS. Since the second part is irrational and contradicts the first part it cannot be Magisterial.The conclusion of the 1949 LOHO is that everyone does not need to be a member of the Church for salvation. This is heretical and schismatic.

It is a break with the pre-1949 Magisterium of the Catholic Church which upheld the traditional exclusivist interpretation of EENS.

When Pope Pius XII allowed the 1949 LOHO to project invisible cases of BOD and I.I as being physically visible exceptions for EENS it was not Magisterial.So Vatican Council II is not Magisterial when it is interpreted with this irrational reasoning.

So the priests in the parish, because they accept the error in the LOHO, will be interpreting Vatican Council II as a  break with 'the faith of the Fathers'.For them there is rupture at every Mass, rite and liturgy. This is expected when they accept the New Theology of the LOHO which is based upon the fake premise. I avoid the false premise. With the rational premise I return to the Old Theology and the teachings of the saints, popes, Church Fathers and Apostles.

It was difficult for Fr. Paulo to accept that his teaching of Vatican Council II, supported by the whole Church, was not Magisterial. Yet he could not deny that the BOD and I.I are always invisible.

Twenty years back in the parish I was told that BOD and I.I were exceptions for EENS. Now 20 years later they can no more says this.Neither can they deny that their interpretation of Vatican Council II is not Magisterial.

I- Lionel Andrades

https://parrocchiasantagapito.jimdofree.com/attivit%C3%A0-orari-e-contatti/