The Left is pleased when the SSPX criticizes Vatican Council II. Since then the SSPX is saying that there is only Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) and there is no Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) known to them. But let the SSPX affirm Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) and EENS( Feeneyite) and see the differennt reaction world wide.

When Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance) is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), we have a different interpretation of Vatican Council II.We do not reject the Council.It's still there.But our premise is different and so the conclusion is in harmony with EENS and the rest of Tradition.

When LG 16 refers to only hypothetical cases I call it Feeneyism.When it is wrongly assumed to be objective cases I call it Cushingism.

Cushingism makes the Council a rupture with Tradition.

David Martin has written a long article which is posted on The Eponymous Flower.It is on Vatican Council II and his reasoning is Cushingite.

He simply has to switch to Feeneyism and his conclusion  would be different.

Even though the liberals were active at Vatican Council II and they reasoned-Cushingite, we simply interpret the Council with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical and we are back to the Old Theology.It's simple.

The liberals could only create the New Theology by assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical. So today they are in a weak position theologically( based upon an irrationality) and doctrinally ( new doctrines created with a false premise).We have found their weak point, their Achilles heel.We know what makes the Council a rupture with the past  and how to avoid the error.

David Martin has not responded.In the comments section of the blog The Eponymous Flower, I wrote that Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 was not an exception for me, to the passage cited from Mysitici Corporis, which affirms Feeneyite EENS.No comment from him.

Similarly Ron Conte has also used Cushingite reasoning on his blog, to wrongly interpret Vatican Council II and EENS.He has not responded.

Similarly Jimmy Akins has used Cushingite reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II  and EENS . He has not responded to my e-mails and blog posts.He is not yet ready to switch to Feeneyism.

Louie Verrecchio , Fr. Brian Harrison, Prof. Joseph Shaw do not interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.They do not respond to what I have written.There is no comment.

Dr. John Rao, Prof. Thomas Pink, theologian John Lamont  will be speaking  at another traditionalist  summer conference soon, and they will interpret Vatican Council II and EENS  with Cushingism .Their concludion has to be irrational and modernistic.They do not respond to what I write.There is no comment from them.Since they do not want to affirm Feeneyite EENS and be politically incorrect with the Left and Satan.

So they stay with the error and blame Vatican Council II, not making the distinction between Vatican Council II Cushingite and Feeneyite.

They expediently point to the the present two popes and the ecclesiastics at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) who are also Cushingites. So why should they stand out and be different  and be persecuted, within and outside the Church.

Blame the Council  and do not talk about Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is their now, old attitude.

Soon Michael Matt will criticize Vatican Council II. Inspite of so many reports on the Internet he will not respond to what I have written.Next month he will do the same.

Rorate Caeli will do the same.They will ignore what I write.

The Left is pleased when the SSPX criticizes Vatican Council II. Since then the SSPX is saying that there is only Vatican Council II( Cushingite) and there is no Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) known to them. But let the SSPX affirm Vatican Council II and EENS, Feeneyite and see the different reaction world wide.

Vatican Council II is not the issue. The issue really is , do you interpret Vatican Council II with  Feeneyism or  Cushingism. -Lionel Andrades