There is a subtle error in Vatican Council II and it is there in all the books on the Council. This error I call Cushingism.It is an irratonal way of looking at the Council.Even the book, The Documents of Vatican Council II by Walter Abbot sj carries the virus.

There is a subtle error in Vatican Council II and it is there in all the books on the Council. This error I call Cushingism.It is an irratonal way of looking at the Council.Even the book, The Documents of Vatican Council II by Walter Abbot sj carries the virus.

Since Abbot was a Cushingite he interpreted the Council with Cushingism. Secondly, the actual documents, without his explanation,are Cushingite. The Council Fathers at Vatican Council II were Cushingites.

So to a reader who is not aware of the difference between Cushingism and Feeneyism, Vatican Council II contradicts itself.There are orthodox passages which support extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and there are unorthodox passages which contradict it.There are exceptions.

This is I call reading Vatican Council II with Cushingism. The fault is there in 'the eye of the beholder'.

Roughly, Cushingism says invisible cases are visible. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) would be visible people in the present times.Feeneyism says invisible cases are just invisible. We cannot see or meet non Catholics saved with BOD and I.I.

So BOD and I.I would refer to an invisible case for  the Feeneyite and they would be physically visible for a Cushingite in 2020.So the different premises would produce different conclusions when reading Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14( baptism of desire) in Vatican Council II.We can see the evidence in many publications. Bishop Bernard Fellay for example would interpret LG 16 and GS 22 as being exceptions to the past ecclesiology. So he implies that they are visible and known people saved outside the Church, for them to be exceptions. This is a mistake he has made in one of his Letters to Friends and Benefactors( see right hand bar for details).

Cushingism as a philosophy says invisible cases are visible and as a theology it says outside the Church there is known salvation.Empirically, what is not there exists for a Cushingite. It can be practically seen.

Cushingites Congar, Rahner and Ratzinger projected BOD and I.I as practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. This was the reasoning of the Cushingite Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It was placed in the Denzinger and referenced in Vatican Council II.

LG 16 and GS 22 were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS for Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr. Luiz Ladaria sj and Fr. Charles Morerod op, in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission( see right hand bar for details). The evidence is there on the Internet in black and white.

So with Cushingism we have a common interpretation of Vatican Council II and a person would not be aware of the error unless of course, he is exposed to a Feeneyite interpretation of the Council.

For a Feeneyite, the orthodox passages support Feeneyite EENS and the Cushingite passages, being always hypothetical, do not contradict the orthodox passages.The Cushingite passages in Lumen Gentium 14 do not refer to real and known people saved outside the Church. So LG 14 would not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Neither would LG 14 contradict EENS as it was defined by three Church Councils in the Extraordinary Magisterium.

For the Feeneyite there can be no passage in Vatican Council II to contradict the strict interpretation of EENS.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS etc always refer to hypothetical cases. So UR 3 is not a practical exception to the traditional ecumenism of return for Lutherans.There is nothing in Unitatis Redintigratio to contradict the old ecumenism of the Church. There is nothing in Lumen Gentium to contradict the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

Possibilities of salvation outside the Church exist only in our human mind. They are not actual people in the present times.

So for a Feeneyite Vatican Council II supports Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, Athanasius Creed on all needing the Catholic faith for salvation etc).

This is how I read Vatican Council II. I was once a Cushingite. Over time, by focusing on EENS I saw through the error.It was an insight. I was the only person writing on this issue.People could not understand me since they were conditioned with Cushingism.An exception was someone writing under the name Cantarella on a traditionalist Internet forum.That was an encouragement.

Even the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the St. Benedict Centers in the USA today, traditionalists, were Feeneyite on EENS but Cushingite on Vatican Council II.They were influenced by Amerio Romano, Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. John Hardon sj, Michael Davies and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Glance at the website of the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA, sedevacantists, unlike  the St. Benedict Centers. Michael and Peter Dimond, traditionalists, are Feeneyite on EENS but Cushingite on Vatican Council II.

This is why I keep saying all the books on Vatican Council II have an error. 

The subtle error is also there in Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church,all were written with Cushingism.

Now in Italy when Alberto Melloni, the official propagandist for the Left,  speaks on all the TV channels here, he interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism.It is an irrational interpretation.It is responsible for the hermeneneutic of rupture with EENS, the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24 Q, 27 Q), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.The understanding of the Apostles and Nicene Creed changes and this is first class heresy and schism with the popes over the centuries. The Profession of Faith becomes meaningless.The error is dogmatic contrary to what he claims on television.

There cannot be ' a development of doctrine' when Melloni uses a false premise ( invisible people are visible) to create a false inference and non traditional conclusion. This is not ' a development'  but if it is  repeated knowingly, it would be ' a deception'.

New books have to be written re-interpreting Vatican Council II with Feeneyism which is the only rational alternative.

This would mean that Archbishop Giancarlo Perego, the archbishop of Ferrara-Commachio, Italy,  would have to affirm Feeneyite EENS supported by Feeneyite Vatican Council II to be rational, non heretical and non schismatic.The priests of the Familia Christi, SSPX, FSSP, Institute of Christ the King and other traditionalists, would find support in his new but traditional theology and Catholic doctrines.-Lionel Andrades