The New Theology is used by Diane Montagna, Roberto dei Mattei and traditionalists and liberals.The real issue never ever was the Latin Mass but the New Theology, Cushingite theology.

Traditionalists use the false premise and are not aware of it. They use the same new theology of the liberals. The new theology is Cushingite theology.It is based upon the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) being exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

BOD,BOB and I.I are assumed to be visible and known. Then they are projected as exceptions to EENS. So the New Theology says outside the Church there is salvation.

 

Similarly LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, are interpreted with the New Theology. They were visible and known for Bishop Bernard Fellay and Fr. Pierpaulo Petrucci, the Superior General and District Superior respectively of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX).

This was the New Theology of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.Fr. Thomas Hardon, Fr.William Most and Msgr.Joseph Clifford Fenton never identified and corrected it.

Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Ladaria  interpreted Vatican Council II with the New Theology to create a rupture with Tradition.They wanted the SSPX  to do the same.The SSPX was interpreting Vatican Council II with the New Theology, Cushingite theology, but were rejecting the conclusion, which was an obvious rupture with EENS, an ecumenism of return etc . Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Paul VI wanted that rupture.

Cardinal Ratzinger could have put together  the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) without the new theology.He could have clarified that BOD, BOB and I.I are always hypothetical and so are not exceptions to EENS. He could have said that Vatican Council II does not contradict the past  and that this was a mistake he made when he wrote Redemptoris Missio. But there was no correction from him.He persisted with the error.

In 2016 he announced that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century since there was ' a development', for him, with Vatican Council II.He meant Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and inference.This was also the interpretation of the Lefebvrists.

The Lefebvrists are still not aware that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is the New Theology.BOD and I.I were projected as being exceptions to EENS.

So at a Lepanto conference in Rome, Roberto dei Mattei and John Lamont  criticized the New Theology(nouvelle théologie) not knowing that they themselves use the New Theology and that without the New Theology Vatican Council II would support Feeneyite EENS.

They do not want to affirm Feeneyite EENS. So when Diane Montagna asked Mattei about EENS he projected invincible ignorance as being a literal exception. So he mentioned invincible ignorance with reference to EENS.This was the New Theology. There can only be literal exceptions to EENS, with the New Theology.Invisible cases are projected as being visible in the present times.

At the Lepanto conference talks, they were simply using the term New Theology since the liberals refer to it.Cardinal Ratzinger would have known what was the precise cause of the New Theology but the traditionalists were ignorant about it.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not know the difference between Cushingism and Feeneyism as a philosophy and theology.The Jewish Left only accepts Cushingism. Mattei may now know this. So he will not interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Feeneyism. He will let the New Theology remain. It is useful.

The real issue never ever was the Latin Mass but the New Theology, Cushingite theology.

The real issue for the Franciscans of the Immaculate and Pope Francis is not the Latin Mass.The real issue was accepting Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms and EENS with Feeneyism and not Cushingism as a theology i.e with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical in the present times.Unknown non Catholics saved outside the Church are just unknown. This is Feeneyism.

Now both groups of the Franciscans of the Immaculate affirm Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents without Feeneyism. 

Fr.Stefano Manelli and Roberto dei Mattei have to make the correction i.e affirm Vatican Council II without the new theology.

Pope Francis and Cardinal Braz de Avez would then have no choice but to accept it.How can they force the average Catholic to use an irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II ? Why should the average Catholic or the Franciscans, of different communities in the world, see invisible people as being visible in the present times? Now they can get away with it because of the ignorance of the traditionalist and conservative Catholics.

Even if the Franciscans of the Immaculate hand over all their property to the Church and even if all the Franciscans in the world in different communities,are placed under one roof,Vatican Council II is still Feeneyite. There is no way out of this.

Fr. Stefano Manelli F.I must be asked to unite the Franciscans of the Immaculate groups, since irrespective of the Holy Mass offered, Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition.This is a reality which has to be faced.-Lionel Andrades