I interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It is practical. There obviously are no known cases of the baptism of desire (BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2017.So there are no practical exceptions to EENS. Neither was BOD,BOB and I.I an exception to Feeneyite EENS in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued to the Archbishop of Boston. The cardinals made an objective mistake.Similarly mentioning BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) relative to the traditional teaching on salvation was superfluous.It was a mistake to mention it in Lumen Gentium 16.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning.It assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.Bishop Athanasius Schneider like most Catholkics today interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So Lumen Gentium 16 being physically visible and personally known would be an exception to the dogma EENS, it would be a rupture with Tradition.
I interpret the following terms with Feeneyism and Bishop Schneider does so with Cushingism (so does the SSPX).
For me the Baptism of Desire is Feeneyite and for him it is Cushingite.
For me Invincible Ignorance is Feeneyite and for him it is Cushingite.
For meVatican Council II is Feeneyite and for him it is Cushingite.
For me Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is Feeneyite and for him it is Cushingite.
For me the Nicene Creed is Feeneyite and for him it is Cushingite.
For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston is Feeneyite and for Bishop Schneider is Cushingite.
I avoid the New Theology, while he uses it.
For me the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Feeneyite and for the bishop it is Cushingite.-Lionel Andrades
TERMS DEFINED
Baptism of Desire (Feeneyite): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.It is not an exception to Feeneyite EENS.
Baptism of Desire (Cushingite): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is a visible case it is relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance ( Feeneyite): This refers tothe hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was ignorant of Jesus and the Catholic Church.Since it is a hypothetical and theoretical case it is not and never was an exception to Feneeyite EENS.
Invincible Ignorance ( Feeneyite): This refers tothe hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was ignorant of Jesus and the Catholic Church.Since it is a hypothetical and theoretical case it is not and never was an exception to Feneeyite EENS.
Invincible Ignorance (Cushingite): This refers tothe explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance of the Gospel, he did not know about Jesus and the Church.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational. Any one who says invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire is an exception to Feeneyite EENS infers that these cases are objective for them to be exceptions.
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was Feeneyite.
Liberal theologians: They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used Cushingism. So they re-interpreted Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( invincible ignorance was considered visible by them), the Catechism of the Council of Trent etc.
Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refernot to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer tohypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston: It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It was Cushingite.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part,only .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.It does not infer that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to explicit and objective cases for them to be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
Letter of the Holy Office ( Cushingite). It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It wrongly assumes hypothetical casesare objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with this confusion.It can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was Feeneyite.
Liberal theologians: They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used Cushingism. So they re-interpreted Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( invincible ignorance was considered visible by them), the Catechism of the Council of Trent etc.
Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refernot to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer tohypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston: It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It was Cushingite.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part,only .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.It does not infer that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to explicit and objective cases for them to be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
Letter of the Holy Office ( Cushingite). It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It wrongly assumes hypothetical casesare objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with this confusion.It can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted with wrongly with Cushingism or correctly with Feeneyism.
Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) ; It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is a Cushingite interpretation.
Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.It is Feeneyite.
New Theology: It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It's basis is Cushingism.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite): .It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.Theoretical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction.It suggests that since God is not limited to the Sacraments that we know such cases in real life. So it is mentioned.At the same time CCC 1257 states that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. So it seems Cushingite when it suggests all need to enter the Church with the baptism of water but some do not since there are known exceptions( God is not limited to the Sacraments).
Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) ; It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is a Cushingite interpretation.
Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.It is Feeneyite.
New Theology: It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It's basis is Cushingism.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite): .It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.Theoretical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction.It suggests that since God is not limited to the Sacraments that we know such cases in real life. So it is mentioned.At the same time CCC 1257 states that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. So it seems Cushingite when it suggests all need to enter the Church with the baptism of water but some do not since there are known exceptions( God is not limited to the Sacraments).
Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with Feeneyism since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, known people who are saved outside the Church since God is not limited to the Sacraments.
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with Feeneyism since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, known people who are saved outside the Church since God is not limited to the Sacraments.
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
However CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church since Cardinal Ratzinger assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved invincible ignorance referred to known and objective cases and so they were relevant to EENS Feeneyite. This was Cushingism.It was also an error.
Council of Trent (Feeneyite interpretation) : .The reference to the desire for the baptism of water by a catechumen is a reference to a theoretical and hypothetical case.
Council of Trent : (Cushingite interpretation) The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water and is a reference to a practical and personally known case saved outside the Church.This is false reasoning.
Council of Trent : (Cushingite interpretation) The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water and is a reference to a practical and personally known case saved outside the Church.This is false reasoning.
I accept all the magisterial documents of the Church and I interpret them with Feeneyism. Bishop Athansius Schneider could do the same.
The two popes and all the cardinals accept all the magisterial documents of the Catholic Church, but unlike me, interpret them with irrational Cushingism.
This is the Arian heresy of today.Bishop Schneider is part of it and he does not know about it.
-Lionel Andrades
_________________________________________________
AUGUST 22, 2016
I interpret the following terms with Feeneyism and the SSPX does so with Cushingism.The SSPX could agree or disagree with me herehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/i-interpret-following-terms-with.html
MARCH 27, 2017
Council of Trent can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/council-of-trent-can-be-interpreted.html
MARCH 27, 2017
The Catholic Church today contradicts the Catholic Church of for example in the 16th century. The error was assuming invisible for us baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS.Pope Benedict confirmed this last March 2016
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/the-catholic-church-today-contradicts.html
MARCH 27, 2017
Long lists of Baptism of Desire and Blood do not mention any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus -2
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/long-lists-of-baptism-of-desire-and_27.html
March 27, 2017
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment