Baronius Press and Dr.Robert Fastiggi have brought out a new edition of Ludwig Otts Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma since it supports the present liberalism in the Catholic Church, with its Cushingite theology

Baronius Press and Dr.Robert Fastiggi have brought out a new edition of Ludwig Otts Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma since it supports the present liberalism in the Catholic Church, with its Cushingite theology.

With Cushingism Dr. Fastiggi infers that Fr. Leonard Feeney and not the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was in heresy.

With Cushingism Dr. Fastiggi reasons that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong not to affirm the official Cushingite interpretation of Vatican Council II, which was a rupture with Tradition.

As a professor of theology in Detroit he has been given a mandatam to teach theology by the Archbishop since Dr. Fastiggi will not interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with Feeneyite philosophy and theology.For then Vatican Council II would be in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and the Syllabus of Errors.

With Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) Bishop Donald Sanborn whom Dr. Fastiggi debated on Ecclesiology, would not have to reject Vatican Council II as being in schism with the past popes on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the past ecclesiology.There could only be an ecumenism of return based on the old ecclesiology and this would not be welcome for the liberals in Detroit or the USCCB.

If Dr. Fastiggi interprets Vatican Council II  with Feeneyism, he would not be in schism with the past popes, as he is presently in, with Cushingism theology,  but there would be a rupture with the Archdiocese of Detroit and the Rector of the Sacred Heart Major Seminary where he teaches. They interpret all Magisterial documents with Cushingism which creates the break with Tradition.

Since Ludwig Ott was not Feeneyite, he has contributed to the present doctrinal confusion in the Church and the Archdiocese of Detroit and the liberals promotes his book.-Lionel Andrades

JUNE 2, 2018

Ludwig Ott is in a rupture with the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century and Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/06/message-incomplete-come-back-after-30.html

JUNE 1, 2018

Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is Cushingite, it overlooks an irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Prof Robert Fastiggi also use the false premise to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I and Magisterial documents to create a schism with the past popes

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/06/ludwig-otts-fundamentals-of-catholic.html

Repost : Vatican needs to apologise for the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

APRIL 12, 2018

Repost : Vatican needs to apologise for the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

 NOVEMBER 8, 2017

Vatican needs to apologise for the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

  

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary(MICM) at the St.Benedict Center, Still River, Massachusetts have been granted canonical status by Bishop Robert J.McManus, the bishop of Worcester.It  is approved by the Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei).The Decree recognizes that the MICM is in accord with the Magisterium.

Once again an appeal is made for  an apology from the Vatican for the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.The excommunication was  based upon a doctrinal error, an  irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

1.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(Holy Office 1949) made a mistake when they assumed invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) werevisible and known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.They were examples of salvation outside the Church.This was the possibilities -are- exceptions- error. 1 So Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct while the Holy Office 1949 (CDF) was irrational in its philosophy and new theology.The Jesuit at Boston was orthodox on salvation doctrine.While the Holy Office and the Jesuit community were heretical.

2.Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,were wrong to excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre.The central issue was Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II was interpreted by the magisterium with BOD,BOB,I.I,LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc ,which were hypothetical possibilities, as being  exceptions to the dogma EENS.They were mistaken for being examples of known salvation outside the Church.So for the magisterium, Vatican Council II became a rupture with Tradition.It contradicted EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the past ecclesiology of an ecumenism of return.

So Archbishop Lefebvre correctly  rejected this interpretation of the Council.

Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger instead should have clarified that Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc referring to hypothetical and theoretical cases, were not relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS.They were not exceptions to EENS as it was interpreted for example by the missionaries in the 16th century.They should have announced that the theologians at Vatican Council II made a mistake.Possibilities could not be exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS,since possibilities are not concrete people in our reality.
But may be this was not known to them.
It was not known to Archbishop Lefebvre.

It was not known to the SSPX bishops and traditionalists of that time Dietrich von Hildebrand and Alice von Hildebrand, Michael Davis.

Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger needed to announce that Vatican Council II, without the irrational premise, is in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and the ecumenism of return.There was no conflict with the Syllabus of Errors.

They did not do this.

Since Pius XII this error was made by the popes.It is repeated today by the SSPX bishops.2.

The mistake is not corrected for the  communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in the USA.

The community at Still River,MA was granted canonical status last month, but there is no clarification on the doctrinal issue for Catholics at large.

The diocese of Worcester still interprets Vatican Council II and EENS with the irrational premise.Possibillities are exceptions to the dogma EENS is their doctrine.Vatican Council II a rupture with EENS and EENS is a rupture with EENS as it was known in the 16th century since They support Cushing and John Courtney Murray.invisble BOD,BOB and I.I are visible exceptions to EENS for the magisterium.


So the message still is that Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong and Archbishop Cushing and the Jesuits were correct.The SSPX must adapt today to the irrational imterpretation of Vatican Council II for canonical status.

Bishop McManus,the two popes and the CDF are still in a rupture with the magisterium of the past.They are ignoring this.They are passing off thepossibilities are exceptions error as the authentic magisterium of the Church.Their  philosophy violates the Principle of Non Contradiction 3 and is not part of the Catholic deposit of the faith.Their official theology depends upon seeing on earth non existing people.

The CDF must announce that interpreting Vatican Council II without the irrational premise is the deposit of the faith.


The same announcement must be made by Bishop Athansius Schneider who represents the Vatican and the SSPX.He must not  ask for a Syllabus of Errors based on the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.


Also Chris Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei it is hoped will announce that when they wrote their books on Vatican Council II, they were unaware that Vatican Council II and EENS could be interpreted without the irrational premise.

Their books are now obsolete as are the writings of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
-Lionel Andrades


1.

10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22)...'-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions(emphasis added)

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1997_cristianesimo-religioni_en.html

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/formal-recognition-of-traditionalist.html

2.

The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)

Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". - Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/formal-recognition-of-traditionalist.html

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/pope-john-paul-ii-and-cardinal-joseph.html

3

Ralph Martin, Robert Fastiggi,John Martignoni,Fr.Stefano Visintin osb indicate Pope Francis has violated the Principle of Non Contradiction : trads and sedes clueless

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/ralph-martin-robert-fastiggijohn.html

SEPTEMBER 22, 2017

If any one says that invisible people are visible in general at the same time on earth with reference to EENS he has contradicted the Principle of Non Contradiction : error of popes from Pius XII to Francis

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/09/if-any-one-says-that-invisible-people.html

________________________________________________


November 7, 2017
Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilities are exceptions' error since this was the mistake in Vatican Council II itself(LG 14 etc)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/bishop-robert-jmcmanus-and-brother_7.html

March 28, 2016
The excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre by the CDF Prefect, like that of Fr.Leonard Feeney by the Holy Office (CDF) in 1949, was an injustice.There was no known salvation outside the Church
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-excommunication-of-archbishop.html

 MAY 29, 2016

SSPX is wasting time

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/sspx-is-wasting-time.html

Part 3 : Dr.Fastiggi believes Archbishop Lefebvre should have accepted Vatican Council II (Cushingite) which was a break with Tradition and not Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) which was in harmony with EENS.

(1:14:41) Dr.Fastiggi says that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre disobeyed two popes. He means Archbishop Lefebvre should have interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism, like the two popes and then accept the conclusion, which would be a break with Tradition.

He does not say that Archbishop Lefebvre should have interpreted Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.Then there would not be a rupture with the dogma EENS and the exclusivist understanding of salvation in the Catholic Church.But it is obligatory for all professors of theology in Detroit to interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism only.It is only then that the bishop is allowed to give them the mandatum to teach theology.-Lionel Andrades

JUNE 2, 2018

Part 2 : No Salvation outside the Church- Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Authenticum Lectur...http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/06/no-salvation-outside-church-dr-robert_2.html

JUNE 2, 2018

Part 1: No Salvation outside the Church- Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Authenticum Lectur...: irrational Cushingite theology being promoted

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/06/no-salvation-outside-church-dr-robert.html

Part 2 : No Salvation outside the Church- Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Authenticum Lectur...

Continued 1
(Time 39:33) With the discovery of the Americas... these people never heard the Gospel, their ancestors who lived before them they never heard the Gospel  are they just all damned?, Dr. Fastiggi asks.
Cushingism would say that there are known exceptions so all of them are not damned. Feenyism would reason that there can be no known exceptions to the dogma EENS and so they are all damned. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and Ad Gentes 7( all need faith and baptism for salvation) is the ordinary means of salvation. Invincible ignorance is not the ordinary way.

He then quotes hypothetical cases referred to by Spanish theologians as if they are no hypothetical..He  cites the Council of Trent  and mentions the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I). He mentions implicit baptism of desire. In other words these are references to known people saved outside the Church. Since if they are simply hypothetical cases they cannot be relevant to EENS. An invisible person cannot be an example of salvation outside the Church in 2018.Yet this was how the liberal theologians interpreted I.I. and BOD. Possibilities and theoretical cases , referred to in the past, for Dr. Fastiggi are exceptions to the Feeneyite EENS.

For me BOD and I.I are not relevant or exceptions to EENS since they are hypothetical and theoretical cases only.This is Feeneyism. It is different from Dr. Fastiggi's Cushingite reasoning.

So even if a person is saved in invincible ignorance, as mentioned by a pope, this is  mentioned with hope, compassion and speculation.The popes do not state that these actually known people, saved as such.Yet Dr. Fastiggi suggests that they are otherwise why mention it with reference to outside the Church there is no salvation.

He then affirms the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says people whom we cannot see or known on earth are known and visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. This was heresy.They were now interpreting EENS with Cushingism.Then in 1965 the liberals  will interpret even Vatican Council II with Cushingism, like Dr. Fastiggi.

Dr.Fastiggi calls this ' a big breakthrough'. However the breakthrough involves accepting that there is explicit and objective BOD, in certain known persons and so these are objective examples of salvation outside the Church. This is the reasoning of an adult Catholic professor of theology.

(54:30) People were saying that we have re-thought missionary activity. Of course.Since Cushingism says there is known salvation outside the Church.There are known cases of non Catholics saved with BOD, BOB and I.I. There is the known case of a Protestant saved as an Anonymous Christian.So if there is salvation outside the Catholic Church why have mission? If people are saved outside the Church and they are known to us, then why proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King ? So we can have a New Ecumenism replace the old ecumenism of return, and Catholics can evangelize alongside the Protestants, as it is now officially being done, in the New Evangelisation.

(55:01) Dominus Iesus was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF).Dr.Fastiggi cites Dominus Iesus11 which is Christological. It cannot affirm the exclusivist ecclesiology since Cardinal Ratzinger was a Cushingite. He interprets LG 14 etc  with Cushingism.He rejects Feeneyism.

(57:49) He asks how can we judge the Orthodox Christians etc. He has already judged them as being exceptions to the ordinary means of salvation, which is faith and baptism in the Catholic Church.He cannot say they are oriented to Hell.This was the ecclesiology of the Church for centuries.

He then quotes the Feeneyite passage of Dominus Iesus (20).It would be followed by a Cushingite passage for Dr.Fastiggi, which I would interpret with Feeneyism.So there would be no passages to contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.

He finally says that the Fr. Leonard Feeney case contributed to a development of doctrine. Since it was understood that 'implicit baptism of desire' was an exception to Feeneyite EENS. He is referring to an objective example of salvation outside the Church.
-Lionel Andrades

1.

JUNE 2, 2018

No Salvation outside the Church- Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Authenticum Lectur...: irrational Cushingite theology being promoted

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/06/no-salvation-outside-church-dr-robert.html

Part 1 : No Salvation outside the Church- Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Authenticum Lectur...: irrational Cushingite theology being promoted

(Time 1:12.43) He is asked if the Feeneyites are reconciled with the Church?

They are reconciled with the Church since their Cushingite bishops in Worcester and Manchester expect them to interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism.The St.Benedict Centers have not announced that they affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.

Their Cushingite bishops also reject EENS( Feeneyite) and interpret the Catechisms with Cushingism, like Dr.Fastiggi.

____________________

Dr.Fastiggi says that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is "exquisite".The Letter assumes unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are known and visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so EENS as it was traditionally known over the centuries was contradicted.This is the Cushingite new theology being taught by Dr. Robert Fastiggi.This is irrational. To assume unknown people are known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS is a false reasoning.Yet it is supported by Dr. Fastiggi.
__________________

(Time 5:24) He cites Lumen Gentium 14 as if it refers to known people saved outside the Church and does not clarify that Lumen Gentium 14 does not contradict Feeneyite EENS.
He cannot say this. Since LG 14 really does contradict Feeneyite EENS for him.He is a Cushingite.His reasoning is Cushingite. LG 14 refers to unknown people for him while for me they are simply hypothetical cases.
The Council Fathers, at least some of them were Cushingites and so they made this mistake at LG 14. This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
However even though LG 14 is a mistake we can be aware that there are no known people in 2018, for example, saved outside the Catholic Church in invincible ignorance.So we can interpret LG 14 as being Feeneyite, as not being an exception to EENS as it was known for example to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.
(8:34) He says Vatican Council II goes back to the theology of St. Robert Bellarmine. We are united by the same faith...
Yes this is a Feeneyite passage in Vatican Council II (LG 14). There are also Cushingite passages which contradict this Feeneyite passage. Dr. Fastiggi does not speak about this.
(12:24) He cites Lumen Gentium 16  which says there are some people who do not God but strive to live a good life.So there elements of truth and holiness in other religions.It is not that you are either in or out, says Dr.Fastiggi.Why not? Whom do we know who is not in the Church and is 'in', who will be saved? He is Cushingite so he will assume unknown people, whom only Jesus can judge, will be judged by us human beings as going to Heaven, even though they are not in the Church with faith and baptism(AG 7).He can judge the exceptions, of course. Since he is a Cushingite.
(16:52) He presents Jesus without the Church, it is Christology without the past exlusivist ecclesiology.He is a liberal.
(18:26) "What about those who are not members of the Church, are they lost ?", he asks. He then cites invincible ignorance(LG 16) as an exception. In other words there are known people saved in invincible ignorance outside the Church and so there are exceptions to the exclusivist ecclesiology of the past. This is his familiar Cushingite reason.
(19:40) Now historically he tries to justify his Cushingite reasons and says in the Patristic period there was a thinking of the possibilitiy of non Catholics being saved outside the Church.
(34:25) He cites Feeneyite Cantate Domino, Council of Florence but has negated it earlier with his Cushingite interpretation of LG 14, LG 16 etc.
-Lionel Andrades

Catholic youth in Rome on Mission organised by the Rome Vicariate are confused with Cushingism teachings spread officially in the Church

Video  available only on Gloria TV :

GESU AL CENTRO PONTE MILVIO 2011

Lionel L. Andrades Nov 19, 2016

 

C'era una programma di Gesù al Centro per i giovani della diocesi di Rome.Sarebbe andati per le strade di Roma con la loro musica e la testimonianza di fede e amore per Gesù.Ormai vietati di autorita civica di Roma. Non hanno il permesso a Roma per parlare sul loro fede cattolica.
Questo programma è organizzato dal Vicariato di Roma ogni anno.
In questo video a Ponte Milvio questi giovani cattolici erano proclamando Gesù senza la necessità della Chiesa per la salvezza.
Loro negavano il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus e anche il Concilio Vaticano II (AG 7, LG 14).Loro negavano Giov.3:5 e Marco 16:16.

Sono considerati i mezzi straordinari di salvezza non solo come possibilità, ma esplicite eccezioni per la necessità per tutti per entrare nella Chiesa nei tempi attuali per la salvezza.

There was a Gesu al Centro program for youth from the diocese of Rome.They would go out on the streets of Rome with their music and testimony of Jesus.The civic authorities have now prohibited it.They do not have permission in Rome to speak about their Catholic Faith.
This program is organised by the Rome Vicariate.

In this video these Catholic youth were proclaiming Jesus without the necessity of the Church for salvation.
They were denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14).They were negating John 3:5 and Mark 16:16
They considered the extraordinary means of salvation as not only possibilities but explicit exceptions to all needing to enter the Church in the present times for salvation.

https://gloria.tv/video/rBEiKkAbAQQT2WEEKbDFtzfVL

EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALLUS? :We can interpret Lumen Gentium 14 with Feeneyism instead of the common Cushingite interpretation in this video

This is a Catholic apologetics group from the Phillpines which interprets extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Cushingism.
'Do we mean that only Catholics will be saved,' they ask and then answer 'NO'.
Practically only Catholics will be saved since this is the teaching of the dogma EENS. This is the ordinary means of salvation. This is the norm.(John 3:5, Mark 16:16).This would be Feeneyism.
Hypothetically, in theory one can presume that there are people who can be saved outside the Church. This would be speculation, though.Also in individual cases we cannot know who will be an exception to the general rule for salvation, which is faith and baptism in the Catholic Church.
The video says that only those who intentionally abandon the Catholic Faith will not be saved.
It is true that those who abandon the Faith will not be saved but also all people in general who are outside the Catholic Church will not be saved.
So why does this video say only those who intentionally do not enter the Church  will not be saved?
Since they are confused with Lument Gentium 14(LG 14).
LG 14 comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which infers that there are known people saved in invincible ignorance. So only those who know about Jesus and the Church, who are not in ignorance, and do not enter will not be saved.
But this is false since there are no  known cases of someone being saved in invincible ignorance. This was a false premise used by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
So when Vatican Council II refers to invincible ignorance, directly or indirectly, it is referring to a zero case in our reality.There are no known people saved in invincible ignorance. This was a mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was repeated at Vatican Council II.
So today we can interpret Vatican Council II (LG 14) with Cushingism or Feeneyism. We can assume that LG 14 refers to known people saved outside the Church( Cushingism) who were in ingnorance and are now saved or are going to be saved , or, it refers to unknown people who never ever were exceptions to the dogma EENS. So we can interpret LG 14 with Feeneyism.
All need to enter the Church for salvation, all in general and this includes 'those who know and those who do not know'.-Lionel Andrades

Is There Salvation Outside of the Church?- Robert Sungenis uses irrational Cushingism and is not aware of it

MAY 31, 2014

Michael Voris, Robert Sungenis still have a problem with theology : reasoning with a false premise

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/05/michael-voris-robert-sungenis-still.html

 

Robert Sungenis' talks on salvation have become obsolete

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/robert-sungenis-talks-on-salvation-have.html#links