CMTV affirmed CCC 846 and did not qualify that that their interpretation was Feeneyite. They also let it seem that they interpret BOD, BOB and I.I with Cushingism.So it would be understood that their interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Creeds, would also be heretical, non rational and Cushingite.

I affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846 -Outside the Church No Salvation) and also Cantate Domino,Council of Florence 1441  on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

I affirm Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation and also hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc, which being theoretical and speculative, and not objective in 2020, do not contradict Ad Gentes 7  or the Extraordinary magisterium of Cantate Domino, Council of Florence.

So I affirm Feeneyite EENS and Feeneyite baptism of desire.

This may seem contradictory for many, since they assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to Feeneyite EENS. They imply that there are objective cases of the baptism of desire in the present times (1965-2020).This is a mistake. There are no visible cases of the baptism of desire.The baptism of desire never ever was an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS. So for me Mystici Corporis and other magisterial documents which mention BOD, BOB and I.I, do not contradict Feeneyte EENs.

BOD, BOB and I.I are always invisible. This is looking at BOD, BOB and I.I with Feeneyism.So the Secretaries of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have made a mistake when they projected LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) and CCC 847-848 ( invincible ignorance) as being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.

It was a mistake for Vatican Council II to refer to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) , with its faulty reasoning.

Thosw who affirm Feeneyite EENS and hypothetical BOD, BOB and I.I will continue to be persecuted but at least you have the satisfaction of interpreting the Creeds, Catechisms and Vatican Council II, rationally.You are at peace with God and so you are at peace with yourself.

You also have the satisfction of knowing that you are not rejecting any magisterial document.LOHO, has an objective error and so cannot be magisterial.

The first part of LOHO supports Feeneyite EENS and the second part contradicts the first part  and the rest of Tradition, It was placed in the Denzinger, with the mistake, by the liberal Fr. Karl Rahner sj.The LOHO was made public in the Archdiocese of Boston, some three years after it was kept hidden.It is official heresy when it rejects the dogma EENS by citing non existing cases of the BOD and I.I.

It states:

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that  he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949  1

Fr.Leonard Feeney was saying that there are no practical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I , without the baptism of water, and he was expelled by the Jesuits  and the excommunication by Cardinal Richard Cushing was not lifted for some 19 years, right through Vatican Council II ( 1965), where Cushing and the Jesuits were active.

Supporters of Fr. Leonard Feeney today, like Brother Andre Marie MICM, are under pressure  to accept heresy and sacrilege, or be legally declared  non Catholic, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Bishop of Manchester, Bishop Peter Libasci.Brother Andre Marie affirsm Feeneyite EENS and CCC 847-848 refer to hypothetical cases for him. Similarly CCC 846 is Feeneyite for him.

He has formally informed the CDF and the Diocese of Manchester but this is unacceptable for them. They interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism just like Michael Voris and the CMTV Staff.

Brother Andre Marie affirms Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and is not schismatic on the Council. However the CDF and Bishop Peter Llibasci and his Curia affirm Vatican Council II( Cushingite)  and so are in schism with the popes over the centuries, who only knew of an EENS( Feeneyite).For them there could only be a Feeneyite BOD, BOB and I.I. This was common sense and it was being honest.

Brother Andre Marie accepts all the Creeds and Catechisms and Vatican Council II and interprets them with Feeneyism.The CDF also accepts magisterial documents but interprets them all with Cushingism to create the hermeneutic of rupture with the past ecclesiology and Feeneyite EENS.

So   it was  a disappointment when CMTV affirmed CCC 846 and did not qualify that that their interpretation was Feeneyite. They also let it seem that they interpret BOD, BOB and I.I with Cushingism.So it would be understood that their interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Creeds, would also be heretical, non rational and Cushingite.-Lionel Andrades

1

SEPTEMBER 2, 2018

The Letter (1949) can be accepted in its first part which is traditional. The second part contradicts the first part. It is irrational, non traditional and heretical.https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-letter-1949-can-be-accepted-in-its.html

LINKS FROM THE RIGHT HAND BAR. CLICK TO ACCESS

• Letter of the Holy Office (12)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (98)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 can be read with the red passages not being exceptions to the blue passages or with the red passages being exceptions to the blue passages (1)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 error carried clearly into Vatican Council II (14)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has heresy upon which so much of Vatican Council II is based. (5)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is heresy ( Graphics) (4)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 read with the Feeneyite-Cushingite model (2)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 referenced in Vatican Council II (1)
• Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with the for and neutral to EENS method (1)
• Letter of the Holy Office heretical and schismatic (5)
• Letter of the Holy Office heretical and schismatic.Placuit Deo (3)

https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/intv-br.-andre-marie-of-st.-benedicts-center