Even if Fr. Manelli and his group set up a new Institute there still will not be unity in the Catholic Church at large since Fr. Manelli like Fr. Settimo Manelli and Fr. Giovanni Manelli are Cushingites. They interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and inference like Cardinal Walter Kasper, Plinio Correa D’Oliveira and Roberto dei Mattei.
The Commissariat of the F.I is also Cushingite and so there is no unity among the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate.
Why is there still a Latin Mass-Novus Ordo Mass division among the Franciscans of the Immaculate? Since with Vatican Council II (rational-Feeneyite) the Church always returns to the old ecclesiology. There cannot any more be the familiar liberalism. We will have unity.
Pope Francis is responsible for the division among the Franciscans with his irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. The conclusion is nontraditional. With the fake premise and inference he produces modernism. This is not 'the deposit of the faith’. It is something foreign in the Church. It is against unity.
Why cannot Fr. Stefano Manelli and Fr. Alfonso Bruno interpret Vatican Council II rationally and traditionally?
Pope Francis justifies his liberalism and disunity in the Church with Vatican Council II (irrational- Cushingite). Of course, the Council interpreted irrationally would contradict the ecclesiocentrism of the Roman Missal.
But the Roman Missal can be used at the Novus Ordo Mass. There would be no exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism. Vatican Council II (rational) would not have any exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Once again we would have unity in the Church.
So if the seminarians at Tiburtina interpret Vatican Council II rationally, would they be 'crypto Lefebvrists' for Pope Francis?
Probably Fr. Stefano Manelli is allowed to offer the Latin Mass, like the FSSP and the SSPX, since he does not interpret Vatican Council II rationally. He is a Cushingite.
Both the groups of the Franciscans of the Immaculate - the Latin group and Pope Francis' Novus Ordo group are Cushingites.They interpret the Council irrationally. So they are approved. Cushingism produces division. Feeneyism, unity with Tradition.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.
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.
So we can have a Feeneyite priest at the Novus Ordo Mass. There could be a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic group or organization, which could use the Roman Missal at Holy Mass and who could interpret liturgical books- and also deliver the homily- with Feeneyism. So irrespective, if the priest is facing the people or nor at Holy Mass, there is unity with the saints and popes over the centuries.
With Vatican Council II irrational, the pope creates unity with the Lutheran, Pentecostals, Anglicans and Protestants but division within the Catholic Church at large. Since the Catholic Church has been Feeneyite until the 1930's but with the irrationality of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, approved by Pope Pius XII, the Church became Cushingite. Division entered the Church.
With Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism and not Feeneyism, Pope Paul VI maintained the division in the Church.
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).
Now Pope Francis has the opportunity to create unity -the test case is the Franciscans of the Immaculate. He could simply ask them to interpret all Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils, and Catechisms) with Feeneyism.
Even though the Franciscans of the Immaculate have two different liturgies they cannot throw out the original understanding of the dogma EENS and the Creeds with Cushingism. This is what both groups sadly are doing presently. This is being encouraged by the Vicar General of Rome and the President of the Italian Bishops Conference, who want the division to remain.
Cardinals Zuppi and Mauro Gambetti must choose to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and not Cushingism before the next Conclave of Cardinals to elect a pope. When the cardinals interpret Vatican Council II rationally they would then be affirming the dogma EENS, Feeneyite EENS. They would become traditionalists like Fr. Stefano Manelli. The F.I magazine Christ to the World said that the Catholic Church had not retracted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This missionary magazine was banned by the Rome Vicariate.
- There presently is no denial from the offices of the Rome Vicariate, the Italian Bishops Conference and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. With the rational premise and inference Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition. They support me. When they interpret the Council like me their conclusion is traditional- the same as mine.
-Lionel Andrades
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
Posts
