Repost : Bro. Andre Marie MICM, Prior, St. Benedict Center needs to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and inference and ask Bishop Peter Libasci to do the same

OCTOBER 23, 2018

Bro. Andre Marie MICM, Prior, St. Benedict Center needs to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and inference and ask Bishop Peter Libasci to do the same

The diocese of Manchester, USA recognizes Bro.Andre Marie MICM as Prior of the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, N.H since he does not proclaim the Catholic Faith on Vatican Council II, Feeneyite.He does not affirm Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise and inference. Instead he condones the irrational Cushingite interpretation of Vatican Council II in the diocese which is a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). He does not ask Bishop Peter Anthony Libasci, the bishop of Manchester, to also affirm Vatican Council IIwithout the irrationality and so it would be in harmony  with EENS, interpreted without the Cushingite irrationality.

Presently Bishop Libasci assumes unknown casesof the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved invincible ignorance(I.I) arepersonally known, examples of salvation outside the Church. So for him there are known exceptions  to the traditional interpretation of EENS. I call this reasoning Cushingite.

FOR BP.LIBASCI EENS IS CUSHINGITE FOR ME IT IS FEENEYITE

For me there  are no  personally known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I in 2018. If they existed they would only be known to God.I cannot meet someone saved with BOD, BOB and I.I.

Bishop Libasci sees EENS as Cushingite.For me it isFeeneyite.

Similarly for Bishop Libasci, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer toknown people saved outside the Catholic Church.They are saved without faith and baptism and instead with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) etc.The text does not say it but this is what he and his Curia infer.So LG 8 etc areexamples of salvation outside the Church. For him there are objective exceptions to the dogma EENS. 

But there are no such cases in real life.There are no objective exceptions to EENS. I call this way of looking at Vatican Council II, Feeneyite.
 FOR BP. LIBASCI VATICAN COUNCIL II IS CUSHINGITE AND FOR ME IT IS FEENEYITE

So for Bishop Libasci, Vatican Council II isCushingite and for me it is Feeneyite.But for Bro.Andre Marie too Vatican Council II isCushingite and not Feeneyite.

He supports the New Theology, Cushingite theology, based upon unknown non Catholics being known and objective examples of salvation outside the Church.So they are alleged practical exceptions to EENS.This is why his community, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, like the SSPX and other traditionalists, reject Vatican Council II.They all use Cushingism as a way of reading when they look at Vatican Council II.

Cushingism is approved by the present two popes, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Ecclesia Dei and the Left.

In general liberal and conservative Catholics are Cushingite on Vatican Council II.

Bro. Andre Marie needs to tell Bishop Libasci that he interprets EENS and Vatican Council II withoutthe irrational and false premise ( invisible non Catholics are physically visible) and inference ( they are examples of salvation outside the Church and so they negate the dogma EENS).

Also the rest of the community at St. Benedict Center, could affirm the same. It is the only rational way to read Vatican Council II and EENS.

This is the way  the founders of their community reasoned .It was the traditional and rational way of looking at this issue.This was before Cushingism came into the Church and now has spread like the Arian heresy in former times.

The founders did not assume that BOD, BOB and I.I mentioned in the Catechism of Pope Pius X  and the Catechism of the Council of Trent referred tophysically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church. This is something obvious. It is common sense.How could they be physically visible?

They did not assume that the man in the forest in ignorance, whom St. Thomas Aquinas mentioned, was someone personally known to Aquinas.He was speaking hypothetically.Obviously!

They did not claim that St. Emerentiana was personally seen in Heaven by someone on earth, without the baptism of water.

In the book The Bread of Life, Fr.Leonard Feeney recognises that a hypothetical case of a catechumen, who has the desire for the baptism of water and dies before he receives it, is only a hypothetical and theoretical case. The Bread of Life does not suggest that Fr. Leonard Feeney considered this person, someone known to him. This was the false premise and inference of the liberal theologians.

So why should the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary today say that BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to known people saved outside the Church? This would be un-truthful.
Brother Andre Marie could announce that he and his community, fully affirms Vatican Council II with no reservations. Since the Council is in harmony with Feeneyite EENS.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church for us human beings there can be no new ecumenism for us.There is only the old ecumenism of return.

Since the Council is in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology, there is the need to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation, to save souls who are outside the Church.Also to guide those within the Church.

Since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to hypothetical cases only there is no rupture with EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.

Since outside the Church there is no known salvation , the ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II is the same.There is no rupture with the Syllabus of Errors. We are back to the old theology.It was based on outside the Church there is no personally known salvation, for us human beings.All need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7).We cannot know of any exception to Ad Gentes 7.It  supports the past ecclesiology when the reasoning is Feeneyite.

CARDINAL LUIZ LADARIA NOT CHECKED
When Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj at the Placuet Deo Press Conference (March 1, 2018) said that LG 8 was an exception to the past exclusivist understanding of salvation he was using Cushingism. He was not corrected on theCatholicism.org website.

POPE BENEDICT CONDONED
When Pope Benedict in March 2016(Avvenire) said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century he was using Cushingism. Without Cushingism how could Vatican Council II be' a development' of EENS?  There was no comment or correction from the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Pope Benedict was interpreting EENS and Vatican Council II with Cushingism, as he normally does. He could have been asked to interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.
Bro. Andre Marie must stop interpreting Vatican Council II like the liberals and the Vatican and then he will be able to detect the common Cushingite error.

-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/bro-andre-marie-micm-prior-st-benedict.html