Jim Farrell in an article on Church Militant TV interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism and then projects it as a rupture with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).He then cites the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949, which is interpreted with Cushingism. He then criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney for not assuming unknown cases of the baptism of desire etc being known and practical exceptions to EENS.
So the traditional, strict interpretation of EENS, becomes ' a strange doctrine' for Farrell, since he irrationally interprets Vatican Council II.He uses the Cushingite liberal and irrational model instead of the Feeneyite, traditional and rational model.
If he interpreted Vatican Council II with Feeneyism , the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS would no longer be 'strange' for him.
Similarly the traditionalist's interpret the baptism of desire (BOD)etc, with Cushingism.When the popes mentioned BOD etc over the centuries, they misinterpret the popes contradicting the strict interpretation of EENS.So they criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney.
They project Mystici Corporis and Quanta Cura as a rupture with the 'rigorist interpretation' of EENS, when they really are not.The fault lies with the interpretation.
This is an error of the liberals and Lefbvrists and it was there on CMTV un-corrected in the report by Jim Farrell titled, Strange Doctrine of Fr. Feeney.
Michael Voris now criticizes the Alpha evangelisation in the dioceses, while he supports Farrell's Cushingism.
It is irrational for the present two popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) to officially use Cushingism.Though if they correct themselves, there could be a schism from the Left.
Instead the CDF is now excommunicating conservative Catholics who do not interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism and so do not create a rupture with a Feeneyite Tradition i.e Syllabus of Errors, Athansius Creed etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment