Whispers of Restoration - We have to face the visible-invisible, Cushingite-Feeneyite distinction and then proclaim the Faith.

There could be a Restoration when Catholics recognize and admit it that extra ecclesiam nulla salus and  Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) referring to visible or invisible cases in the present times, known or unknown Catholics saved outside the Church.The new website Whispers of Restoration does not recognize this issue.
This is the first step. Then we have to interpret them as referring to only invisible cases.

The books The Great Facade (Ferrara), the Second Vatican Council II-An Unwritten Story (Mattei) and others cited, were written in error.The writers assumed that BOD,BOB and I.I were practical exceptions to EENS and so LG 16, LG 8 were also wrongly interpreted, as being practical exceptions to EENS. This is false.

The organizers of this website do not  affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and neither did Archbishop Lefebvre, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Cardinal Ottaviani and Pope Pius XII.

Similarly they are unable to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise. Unknowingly they assume that invisible non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church are visible. They then infer that these 'known cases' are examples of salvation outside the Church.This was the reasoning also of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II.It still is the error of the present two popes.They all interpreted EENS and Vatican Council II with the false premise.They mixed up what was subjective as being objective.

So for the team that put through this website there is no Feeneyite Vatican Council II and EENS.

Also  many of the the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II itself(1965) interpreted EENS with the same irrationality.

So today there would confusion in the interpretation of the many Catechisms.

I appreciate the section on the Catechisms on this website.Many of them are new for me. I will get down to reading them over time.It is great to have them all in one place.

But how does one interpret the Baltimore Catechism which mentions the baptism of desire?

Then what about the Catechism of Pius X which mentions being saved in invincible ignorance?

For me they refer to hypothetical cases, speculation with good will, they are not actual people known in real life in the past or present.Since only God can know if there is someone in Heaven without the baptism of water and Catholic faith.

So for me they are not practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They do not contradict the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church at that time of the Catechism of Peter Canisius(1555).

But for Roberto dei Mattei, Chris Ferrara, Romano Amerio,  Ludwig Ott, Fr.Chad Ripperger and others cited, they are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS or, EENS as it was known in 1555.

So we have the same catechism before us and they and I interpret it differently.

Similarly since the old catechisms would have affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc) would emerge as a rupture for Mattei and Ferrara and Romano Amerio.
But not for me.

Again we are reading the same text of Vatican Council II and the same catechisms but our interpretation is different. For them Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition and the catechisms, for me it is not.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) would be confusing and vague for them, and it lends itself to this confusion since it is written, accomodating the false premise.But for me, since I am careful to avoid the error in reasoning,  it does not contradict Tradition. I make the distinction between hypothetical and non hypothetical(objective) cases with reference to EENS.

For Cardinal Francesco Selvaggiani and his Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center, traditionalists, were in heresy.Since they did not accept visible cases  of BOD, BOB and I.I as being objective exceptions to traditional EENS.

For Fr. Leonard Feeney-  the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing and the cardinals at Rome, would have to be in heresy.Since they were assuming unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were objective exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.

So both groups would have been reading the catechisms differently.

When hypothetical cases are assumed to be non hypothetical and so known exceptions to the dogma EENS, I call it Cushingism.

When hypothetical cases are accepted as just being hypothetical and not practical exceptions to all needing to enter the Church as members for salvation, I call it Feeneyism.

So Cushingism and Feeneyism could be a philosophy , a way of looking at things, a way of judging and reasoning and it can be a theology, when the conclusion of that reasoning says that there is, or is not , known salvation outside the Church.

For there to be an exception to EENS someone has to exist. Someone has to be present in reality. We cannot say that someone who was believed to be saved outside the Church 500 years back is an exception to all needing to enter the Church in 2018.Neither can we say that the possibility of someone being saved outside the Church is an actual example of salvation outside the Church in 1949,1965 or any other year.

Speculative possibilities of BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be real and known people for us human beings.

No one could have seen St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.Neither does the Church name any person who had the gift of seeing any one else of her time in Heaven, without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).We can speculate and hope but we must not project BOD, BOB and I.I as relevant to EENS as an exception. This was the mistake of the liberal theologians at Boston in 1949.

So we do not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I when we affirm traditional EENS.It does not have to be either-or.Only with visible for us BOD, BOB and I.I it has to be either-or.

We have to make the distinction between visible and invisible, known and unknown, since the liberal theologians interpreted invisible people as being visible and then linked it to EENS as exceptions. 

For Ferrara, Mattei and others on this website, they have unknowingly made the known and unknown distinction and have chosen the irrational option.So there are known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I which create what Pope Benedict, also a Cushingite,  calls the hermeneutic of rupture.

I don't mean to be critical and I appreciate their good work but this website is contributing to the hermeneutic of rupture.

We have to face the visible-invisible, Cushingite-Feeneyite distinction and then proclaim the Faith. -Lionel Andrades



https://www.whispersofrestoration.com/