Fr.Dwight Longeneck would agree with me.The Mass he offers is heretical and sacrilegeous like the one Prof. Peter Kwasniewski attends in Latin : they don't want a hermeneutic of continuity with the past ( EENS, ecumenism of return)

Fr.Dwight Longenecker restricts the discussion with Prof. Peter Kwasniewski on the Novus Ordo Mass to just the liturgy.

1) Since Fr,.Longenecker interprets the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood( BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I)  as being exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and so he has rejected the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation.Prof.Kwaniewski does the same.

2) Since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known and visible non Catholics saved outside the Church and so in this way they are exceptions to EENS, he has changed the Nicene Creed. It is now, for him, " I believe not in one( known)baptism, but three. They are the baptisms of desire, blood and ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So this is a new reality which creates new doctrines and a new Creed."

The new reality looks at BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions.

3)Since BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS and so they refer to visible people( since invisible people cannot be exceptions) he has changed the understanding of Vatican Council II.Now all hypothetical and speculative cases mentioned in the Council- text ( LG 8, LG 16, GS 22 etc) are exceptions to EENS. How can hypothetical, non existing cases be exceptions to EENS in 2019? How can they contradict Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc) ?

4) Since BOD, BOB and I.I are a rupture with EENS for him, all the Catechisms, which mention BOD, BOB and I.I are a rupture with EENS, the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.It is the same for Peter Kwasniewksi.

5.Similarly since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known people saved outside the Church and so there is a break with Tradition,Quanta Cura and Mysitici Corporis which mention these 'exceptions'become a rupture with EENS and the past ecclesiology.So magisterial documents contradict  themselves and each other.Example, the Catechism of Pope Pius X  when it refers to invincible ignorance contradicts itself  when it says all need to be members of the Church for salvation.Visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church, in invincible ignorance contradicts EENS.
 It also contradicts the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( EENS, ecumenism of return).

 With all this heresy, the Mass of Fr. Dwight Longenecker would be a sacrilege.He would agree with me on these points. He would not deny it.Since he does not want to affirm the strict interpretation of EENS. The only way he can avoid proclaiming the traditional, strict interpretation of EENS is by assuming that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS and so are LG 8, LG 16, GS 22 etc.

-Lionel Andrades

St.Robert Bellarmine was a Feeneyite and so was St. Thomas Aquinas.So is Vatican Council II

It is important to note that St.Robert Bellarmine was Feeneyite since BOD, BOB and I.I 1 do not contradict his strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Similarly St. Thomas Aquinas was Feeneyite.

 
Vatican Council II is also Feeneyite since LG 8, GS 22, LG 16 etc do not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.Neither do they contradict the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium in the 16th century. 

So the Catholic Church today, at least for me, is Feeneyite. It has the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the strict interpretation of EENS.Feeneyite EENS is in harmony with Vatican Council II and the Catechisms.So based upon the present exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church I would proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King and the non separation of Church and State.

So this today is the old ecclesiology of the Church associated with the Traditional Latin Mass.It is also the ecclesiology today for me, at Mass in Italian or English.

Mystici Corporis and Quanta Cura do not contradict Feeneyite EENS. Pope Pius XII affirmed the strict interpretation of EENS in the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).He called EENS the 'infallible teaching'.However the second part of LOHO contradicts the first part. It is irrational and heretical. It assumed unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are objective exceptions to EENS.Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre overlooked this error.They also did not support Fr.Leonard Feeney in public.

So the new theology, Cushingism, with the false premise( invisible people are visible) and inference( invisible non Catholics are examples of salvation outside the Church and are exceptions to EENS) creeped into the text of Vatican Council II.

Now it is common to interpret the Council with this irrationality and create a hermeneutic of rupture with the past. 

There is a rational option which has a continuity with EENS, an ecumenism of return and the past ecclesiology but it is rejected for political reasons.
 

So I choose to affirm the Syllabus of Errors and Vatican Council II, the past ecclesiology and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994), an ecumenism of return and the Athanasius Creed( outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Social Reign of Christ the King with the need for the separation of Satanic secularism and State.I affirm hypothetical and speculative BOD, BOB and I.I along with Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

For me there is no opposition to Feeneyite EENS with invisible- for- me BOD, BOB and I.I.

I can affirm both - EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I without having to chose one and reject the other.

So I meet the 1983 Code of Canon Law requirement to acknowledge BOD, BOB and I.I. I know that BOD, BOB and I.I can only be hypothetical for us human beings. There is no  other choice.

So for me BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to EENS,otherwise I would be implying that these are known and physically visible people.

However the International Theological Commission, Vatican made this mistake. This error is there  in two ITC papers.Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Luiz Ladaria sj wrongly assumed that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS.This error is at the foundation of their  New Theology. I call it Cushingism.
 

 
At Vatican Council II the Council Fathers made a mistake when they referenced LOHO and used the irrational reasoning of LOHO on BOD, BOB and I.I.
 

 
 
This is the underlying bad theology of Cardinal Ratzinger's Redemptoris Missio, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus etc.They are not Feeneyite.
 

 
 
Today the New Theology can simply be rejected by seeing hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical, what is invisible, as not being physically visible.

So with this rational reasoning; Feeneyite reasoning  we can interpret magisterial documents in harmony with Feeneyite EENS, as it was known to the Catholic Church in the golden Middle Ages.-Lionel Andrades 

1.
OD(Baptism of Desire), BOB( baptism of blood), I.I ( invincible ignorance) 

_________________________________________________