We are in the same Church but our interpretation of Vatican Council II is different

I was speaking with some religious the other day. I explained that what I believe as a Catholic is in agreement with magisterial documents interpreted rationally. A priest told me that even he affirms magisterial documents. For him what I affirmed was not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

How does this difference emerge?

I know that I affirm Vatican Council II but interpret it without an irrational premise.But he interprets the Council with that irrational premise.So in this way our conclusions are different.He is in a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and I am in accord with EENS( Feeneyite).

For him hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II are exceptions to EENS( Feeneyite). For me hypothetical cases are just hypothetical.So they are not exceptions to EENS.

For him hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc are objective exceptions to all needing to enter the Church. So they contradict EENS( Feeneyite).Not for me.

So I affirm EENS( Feeneyite) without exceptions  and he affirms EEN (Cushingite) in which GS 22, LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc are exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).

He affirms EENS and Vatican Council II Cushingite and I affirm EENS and Vatican Council II, Feeneyite.So we both accept Vatican Council II but our interpretations are different.

He uses a false premise ( invisible cases are visible) and I avoid this false premise.

For him Gaudeìium et Specs 22 refers to known non Catholics saved outside the Church, saved with good will.They are practically known to him.So they become  exceptions to EENS. There are no such people known to us human beings, for me. They can only be known to God.So I have avoided his false premise.

We cannot meet someone who has received salvation with good will and without faith and baptism(AG 7).So my premise is invisible cases are only invisible. Hypothetical cases are only hypothetical.In Vatican Council II GS 22, LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 etc are always hypothetical only for me.There are no objective cases in 2019.

So I interpret Vatican Council II rationally( hypothetical cases are only hypothetical) and he uses a false premise ( hypothetical cases of GS 22 etc are objective).What is subjective for me is objective for him.For him there are literal cases of GS 22. There are no practical cases for me.So because of this error in reasoning GS 22 is an exception to EENS(Feeneyite) for him.

So we are in the same Church, accept Vatican Council II but our conclusions are different.

He is a Cushingite and I am a Feeneyite.

A Cushingite believes hypothetical cases are non hypothetical in the present times.Example GS 22, UR 3, LG 8 etc are objective for a Cushingite.

It was like this for Cardinal Richard Cushing the Arcbishop of Boston, USA.

I am a Feeneyite. A Feeneyite believes hypothetical cases are only hypothetical.They are not physically visible.

It was like this for Fr. Leonard Feeney, a Jesuit in the Archdiocese of Boston.

So today there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, Feeneyite and Cushingite.Vatican Council II has a continuity or a rupture with the traditional teaching on the Catholic Church having an exclusiveness in salvation.

So there are two interpretations for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is EENS Feeneyite or Cushingite.

When BOD, BOB and I.I are only hypothetical they are not examples of known salvation outside the Church in the present times, they are not exceptions to EENS.This is a Feeneyite interpretation. We have EENS ( Feeneyite).

When someone says that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) is an exception to the dogma EENS( Feeneyite), this is a Cushingite interpretation. We have EENS ( Cushingite).

The norm for salvation is faith and baptism and it is not LG 8, UR 3, GS 22 etc.

So today there is a Vatican Council II, Feeneyite and Cushingite, an EENS Feeneyite and Cushingite.

There is also a  BOD, BOB and I.I Feeneyite or Cushingite.It depends upon how you look at BOD, BOB and I.I.Are they invisible or visible, subjective or objective, implicit or explicit, hypothetical or concrete and real ?

In this way we interpret all the Catechisms and also the Nicene and Apostles Creed and the Athanasius Creed.

This means that when I meet a non Catholic in Rome, for example, I know he is oriented to Hell without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.This is the teaching of the Catholic Church in Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).I am referring to Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and EENS( Feeneyite).

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church with magisterial documents interpreted with Feeneyism.Feeneyism is rational and traditional. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit from the time of the Early Church, the popes of the Middle Ages, the Council of Florence 1441 etc.

So when I meet a non Catholic, even a Christian, I know that he does not have Catholic faith,which includes the faith and moral teachings of the Church.Neither does he have access to the Sacraments.He does not have the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.He needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation( to avoid Hell).

So when I meet a non Catholic I know that he is oriented to Hell not because I can personally judge with my mind but because the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit says so in magisterial documents including Vatican Council II.

So I can judge that a particular person is oriented to Hell since the Church says.This is the point I wanted to make before the good priest who thought my views were not that of the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades