The
Jesuit Auxiliary bishop in Rome who negotiated the transfer of traditionalists
priests at Ferrara, has been removed it is reported. Also the Vicar General in Rome has been changed.
The priests
at Ferrara-Commacchio, Italy were transferred by the Archbishop of
Ferrara,Giancarlo Peregro and the visiting Auxiliary Bishop of Rome. This was
after Alan Fabri of the Lega was elected a Mayor there. The priests
from Familia
Christi (Family of Christ) can now demand that the Vatican
Prefect for Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Fernandez, the President of the
Bishops Conference in Italy, Cardinal Zuppi and the Vicar General in Rome,
Cardinal Gambetti, also interpret Vatican Council II and all Magisterial
Documents with Feeneyism and not Cushingism.
All the Auxiliary Bishops in Rome and the bishop
in Ferrara must be honest and affirm Church teachings according to Canon Law.
The bishop cannot change the interpretation of the Creeds . This is first class heresy.According to Canon Law all juridical persons must be Catholic and affirm Church teachings.
-Lionel Andrades
MAY 20, 2024
Definition : fake premise, inference and conclusion and the rational premise, inference and conclusion.
The common fake premise is – invisible people are physically visible in 2024.
The common fake inference is – there are physically visible non Catholics in 2024 saved outside the Catholic Church without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
So the conclusion; the expected false conclusion is that Vatican Council II is a rupture with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. This is a New Theology in the Church. It says outside the Church there is known salvation.
All this reasoning I call Cushingism. This process of bad reasoning is common among the Cushingite popes, cardinals and bishops.
The rational premise is – invisible people are invisible in 2024. Lumen Gentium 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only.
The rational inference is – there are no physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in 2024 without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
The traditional and rational conclusion is that Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. There are no objective exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence (1441), the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q ) and the rest of Tradition.We are back to the old theology of the Roman Missal.
I call this reasoning Feeneyism.
Feeneyism and Cushingism, for me, refer to a way of thinking and not the two well known persons, Cardinal Richard Cushing and Fr. Leonard Feeney.
I interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with Feeneyism. Cardinal Richard Cushing and the popes from Pius XII interpreted them with Cushingism.
I interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism ( invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 16 etc are invisible in 2024). Pope Paul VI and the popes who followed used Cushingism ( invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 14 are physically visible in 1965-2024).
In the 1920s and 1930's the Catholic Church was Feeneyite. Today it is Cushingite.
-Lionel Andrades
Mary, Mother of the Church
Cushingism produces division.
Feeneyism has unity with Tradition.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite ( for me).
Cushingism confuses what is invisible as being visible.
Feeneyism sees what is invisible as being invisible only. So we can interpret LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
- Cushingism depends upon an irrational premise and inference.
- Feeneyism depends upon a rational premise and inference.
Since Cushingite Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and others interpreted LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc; with Cushingism the conclusion was nontraditional. Vatican Council II became a rupture with Tradition. The dogma EENS had alleged practical exceptions. There was alleged known salvation outside the Church.
With Feeneyism Pope Paul VI and others would have been interpreting LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, rationally. They, LG 8 etc, would simply be invisible cases. They would only be hypothetical always. So the conclusion would be traditional. Vatican Council II would not be a rupture with Tradition. The dogma EENS could not have practical exceptions. There was no known salvation outside the Church in particular cases. We could not meet or see someone on earth saved outside the Catholic Church without 'faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7).
Cushingism produces division.
Feeneyism has unity with Tradition.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite ( for me).
Cushingism confuses what is invisible as being visible.
Feeneyism sees what is invisible as being invisible only. So we can interpret LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
Cushingism depends upon an irrational premise and inference.
Feeneyism depends upon a rational premise and inference.
APRIL 8, 2021
Posts
