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

Even traditionalists like Roberto dei Mattei, Chris Ferrara,John Henry Weston, Taylor Marshall, Michael Matt and conservatives Fr.John Zuhlsdorf,Michael Voris, Raymond Arroyo, Robert Royal,Fr. Gerald Murray and EWTN apologists, will choose Vatican Council II Cushingite.They will not even talk/write about Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) being in harmony with EENS ( Feeneyite), the Catechisms( Feeneyite) and the Creeds interpreted with Feeneyism.If they did choose Feeneyism as a philosophy and theology they could get a legal notice.

Yesterday afternoon I went to the basilica of St. Mary Majors, Rome where there is continuous Eucharistic Adoration in one of the side chapels which ends after Vespers at 4.30 p.m.I also went for Confession, in English.

A few years back there was a Brazilian Dominican priest here in one of the Confessionals, who affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and gave me permission to quote him. He said that this was the teaching of the Church.

Though he did not want me to record his statement on a digital camera which I had.I asked him if I could do so, since he was sure of himself. He said no.
After I posted his statement on my blog the  Dominicans removed him immediately as a Confessor there.Or they would come under some Leftist law. So even his  Confessional was taken out.

ANTI SEMITIC PROHIBITION ON CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND PROFESSORS

The Vatican and the Vicariate in coordination with the Jewish Left, associated with Israel, places a prohibition on Catholic priests.They are not allowed to  affirm Vatican Council II and EENS with Feeneyism i.e hypothetical cases are just hypothetical and not objective exceptions to EENS(Feeneyite). They have to choose Cushingism i.e invisible and hypothetical cases are really objective and personnaly known in the present times and so they are practical exceptions to EENS( Feeneyite).There is a new understanding of EENS, with exceptions. This is EENS ( Cushingite).
God bless that honest Brazilian priest.
Yesterday I wanted to ask at the Sacristy if there was a bishop or priest present to whom I could speak. But then I realized that if he spoke honestly it could be the end of his 'career'.I would only making trouble for him.
How can a bishop or priest affirm magisterial documents with Feeneyism and still be in good standing with the Church ?
The present two popes, and the ecclesiastics at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) know that they are teaching error by using Cushingism.They artificially create a rupture with Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors etc).
But they continue to teach heresy.

Even traditionalists like Roberto dei Mattei, Chris Ferrara,John Henry Weston, Taylor Marshall, Michael Matt and conservatives Fr.John Zuhlsdorf,Michael Voris, Raymond Arroyo, Robert Royal,Fr. Gerald  Murray and EWTN apologists, will choose Vatican Council II Cushingite.They will not even talk/write about Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite)  being in harmony with EENS ( Feeneyite), the Catechisms( Feeneyite) and the Creeds interpreted with Feeneyism.If they did choose Feeneyism as a philosophy and theology they could get a legal notice.
-Lionel Andrades

Whatever is the propaganda on Fr. Leonard Feeney, the Catechisms( Feeneyite), Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) and the Creeds ( Feeneyite) support the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and an ecumenism of return. This is the theological basis for the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation

Some priests I know in Rome understand the difference between Vatican Council II Feeneyite and Cushingite.
I tell them that when  I meet a non Catholic I know that he is oriented to Hell, unless he converts into the Catholic Church. I say this based upon Vatican Council II( Feeneyite).The priest here understands. He knows that I am rational, traditional and I am affirming Vatican Council II and not rejecting it. But he will not say the same. Since it could be miscontrued as being Anti Semitic, a thought control weapon being used against Catholics.

So the priest will continue to teach error according to Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).He will say that we cannot judge that a particular non Catholic is oriented to Hell.Since with Cushingism outside the Church there is salvation for him.If one person can allegedly be saved outside the Catholic Church then many could. It could also be the non Catholic whom you meet.This is the reasoning of Bishop Robert Baron and the liberals.

With this specious reansoing the priests here remain incardinated. He he keeps his position as a Catholic priest and is recognised in Rome by the Vicariate and the Vatican.

So it is difficult to get a statement from a priest. If he is honest he could be suspended.

This is as they say  "a sensitive issue"; sensitive with reference to their status and reputation.So they will continue to interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism and teach it to lay Catholics who do not know theology.

They have to repeat the mantra, "Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for saying outside the Church there is no salvation".

Whether Fr. Leonard Feeney was right or wrong Lumen Gentium 8 is not an exception to Feeneyite EENS.

Irrespective of your personal concept of Fr. Leonard Feeney, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj made an objective error at the Placquet Deo Press Conference last year.He told an Associated Press correspondent that LG 8 contradicts the traditional teaching on the Church having an exclusiveness and superiority in salvation.The AP correspondent represented the Jewish Left and Cardinal Ladaria interpreted LG 8 with Cushingism.

Today however we know that Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) does not contradict EENS according to the Magisterium of the 16th century.This is something independent of our views on Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Whatever is the propaganda on Fr. Leonard Feeney, the Catechisms( Feeneyite), Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) and the Creeds ( Feeneyite) support the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and an ecumenism of return.

 This is the theological basis for the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.
It is only with Cushingism that a rupture with Tradition can be created.
-Lionel Andrades

Poland's War Against the 'Rainbow Plague'

 
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/15-year-old-boy-holding-a-crucifix-blocks-lgbt-march-in-poland






https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/polands-war-against-the-rainbow-plague