Paul VI chose Cushingism, which is irrational, to interpret Vatican Council II even though the Council could have been interpreted with Feeneyism and it would be traditional though politically incorrect.

 

The popes from Paul VI were Cushingites. They interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism. The Council could also be interpreted with Feeneyism but the general interpretation was Cushingite.

They mentioned the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(bob) and being saved in invincible ignorance (i.i)which common sense tells us refers to personally unknown people in particular cases. So they are not exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church with an ecumenism of return. This was the basis for the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the non separation of Church and State.This is Feeneyism.But the popes did not choose to interpret BOD,BOB and I.I with Feeneyism.

Instead they, along with the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF),  projected BOD, BOB and I.I, as referring to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church. So they became exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesium nulla salus. The Athansius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX became obsolete.

These were Cushingite popes as compared to the clearly Feeneyite popes before Pope Pius XII.

Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism, depending how one interprets BOD, BOB and I.I. Pope Pius XII did not support Fr. Leonard Feeney in public and neither did he correct Archbishop Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston.Neither did he check the Jesuits. So his position is confusing.However Pope Paul VI chose Cushingism, which is irrational, to interpret Vatican Council II even though the Council could have been interpreted with Feeneyism and it would be traditional though politically incorrect.

-Lionel Andrades