Bishop Athanasius says that the baptism of water is necessary and it is important-but he does not make the Cushingite-Feeneyite distinction. 1
Even cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn in the Catechism of the Catholic Church say that the baptism of water is necessary for eternal salvation but they are Cushingites.So there are exceptions for them.
Bishop Robert Baron also says the same but there are exceptions for him. He is a Cushingite.He finally concludes with the exceptions, that most people come in the exceptions category and have a reasonable hope for salvation.
Bishop Schneider is also a Cushingite.So he does not tell Cushingite Taylor Marshall that all non Catholics on earth are on the way to Hell with no known exceptions. There is not a single known case of someone saved in Heaven without the baptism of water and instead with the baptism of desire.
As a Feeneyite I would say that all need the baptism of water and there are no known exceptions. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are not exceptions to all needing the baptism of water.
He does not make the Feeneyite-Cushingite distinction or he would go a step further and say that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
But he does not mention EENS since his interpretation of EENS is Cushingite.For me EENS is Feneeyite.LG 8 etc are hypothetical and so are not exceptions.
Bishop Schneider says that we need to be missionaries to the non Catholics and non Christians but he does not state that they are all on the way to Hell without faith and baptism in the Catholic Church.He keeps things open and vague as do the liberals.
Since he is a Cushingite, in his comment on the Abu Declaration was Christocentric and not also ecclesiocentric.
With Feeneyism he could be ecclesiocentric in his ecclesiology but with Cushingism, like the popes since Paul VI, he is restricted.
With Cushingism he has made Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).
FR.THOMAS WEINANDY OFM
Similarly when Fr. Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM., Cap mentions the four marks of the Church it is not enough.Even liberals mention the same. He needs to also make the Feeneyite and Cushingite distinction then he becomes clear and specfic. 2
It is the modernists who brought the Cushingite error into the Church 81 years back with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. They consolidated the error 55 years back at Vatican Council II. So we cannot ignore this.For them what is invisible is visible. So we have to deal with this new reality which is part of the New Theology.
Now even Cardinal Walter Kasper can mention the four marks of the Church and say that the baptism of water is important while rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).-Lionel Andrades
12. In your view, which traditional catechism is the best?
How should one evaluate a catechism - by its breadth? Brevity? Endurance? Suitability for a given audience? The level of magisterial authority involved in its publication? Inclusion of examples, anecdotes, and other teaching aids? We may work toward a kind of "rating" for each catechism in the future, but at present we can at least heartily recommend the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which remains the most authoritative catechism in print: the work of an Ecumenical Council, composed by learned and holy bishops directly overseen by St. Charles Borromeo, promulgated with papal authority, repeatedly required and endorsed by centuries of subsequent synods and popes, and declared "far removed from every danger of error" by Pope Clement XIII in 1761. https://www.tradivox.com/faq
Lionel:
In the past there was the website Whispers of Restoration which made available many old Catechisms and the confusion remained.Since the organisers of that website did not want to address the issue of Feeneyism and Cushingism in the interpretation of the Catechisms.
Similarly the Catechism of the Council of Trent can be interpreted with Feeneyism or the common Cushingism and the conclusion would be different.The Cushingites would claim they are magisterial and the Feeneyites would point out to the past popes over the centuries and make the same claim.
1.For example the Catechism of the Council of Trent refers to 'the desire thereof' .It is commonly referred to today as the baptism of desire.
For Cushingites 'the desire thereof' refers to an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). For Cardinal Ratzinger and Bishop Fellay the baptism of desire (LG 14) is an exception to Feeneyite EENS.
For Feeneyites 'the desire theoreof' is not an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS. Since the baptism of desire is a hypothetical case, always. It never ever was an exception to 16th century EENS.
So it is the same Catechism of the Council of Trent but there are two different interpretations.For the Feeneyites this Catechism affirms the strict interpretation of EENS with no known exceptions and for the Cushingites this Catechism affirms EENS but with exceptions and they consider this traditional. Since when the popes and saints referred to the baptism of desire, it was interpreted as known and visible non Catholics saved outside the Church. So with a Cushingite perspective they review Tradition. However for a Feeneyite, Mystici Corporis and Quanta Cura were Feeneyite.
2.The Catechism of Pope Pius X refers to being saved in invincible ignorance and it also supports the strict and traditional interpretation of EENS in 24 Q and 27 Q.
For a Cushingite, invincible ignorance would be an exception to 24 Q and 27 Q .So there would be known exceptions to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.An exception has to be seen and known for it to be an exception. A person who does not exist in our reality cannot be an exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.
For a Feeneyite like me, invincible ignorance would always refer to a hypothetical case and so it could not be an objective exception to EENS in 1965-2020.
3.The old Catechisms were Feeneyite but the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) was Cushingite for its authors.However I can interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Feeneyism and it would be in harmony with the pre-1920 Catechisms of the Catholic Church on EENS, ecumenism etc.Again, we are looking at the same Catechism but our interpretation is determined by the premise we use.
We cannot go back to the past until this issue of Feeneyism and Cushingism is resolved.Since if our theology is different in the Church, the doctrines will also be different.
The new theology of Rahner and Ratzinger is based upon Cushingism. The old theology did not use the false premise of the Cushingites.
4.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II are Cushingite but the old Catechisms are Feeneyite.So for the traditionalists, most of them, Vatican Council II would be a rupture with the theology of the old catechisms.
Since Vatican Council II is Feeneyite for me it would be in harmony with the theology of the old Catechisms and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) interpreted without the false premise, inference and conclusion i.e without Cushingism.-Lionel Andrades FROM THE RIGHT HAND BAR. CLICK TO ACCESS
A group of young Catholics are upset that the priests are no more there in the parish and so they approach the Archbishop of Ferrara who does not respond. A young lady perists with the questions as they are being video taped.There are no answers also from the Vicar General and the Commissariat, sent from Rome to investigate the Familia Christi, a traditionalist Catholic community which could have helped Lega Mayor Alan Fabri, in the last elections.
Archbishop Peregro does not answer. It is generally understood that his action against the Familia Christi was ideological, the usual non separation of the Vatican and the Leftist State.
Now the next step, among others, for the Pro Familia Christi, is to learn what is Cushingism and Feeneyism and then approach the clergy.The young group need a quick short course in philosophy and theology which is not taught at Bologna.Then they can put the right questions to the Cushingite Curia at Ferrara-Commacchio.
Alan Fabri would answer. They could ask him to interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with rational Feeneyism.Then call upon the archbishop to do the same. Canon Law says an archbishop is expected to be a Catholic.He must follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.
An archbishop cannot be a Cushingite.Cushingism is irrational, heretical and non traditional.
But Mons.Peregro is a Cushingite.
Cardinal Ladaria is a Cushingite.
The present two popes are also Cushingites and no one has put this on film.
The difference between Feeneyism and Cushingism is still only explained on this blog.So there is no real opposition to the error in the Church.Theologically and doctrinally no one is challenging the Archbishop.Since most traditionalists are also Cushingite.
I would ask these young Catholics how can the Archbishop, the Vicar General and the Commissariate, be Cushingite as Catholics and hold their office according to Canon Law ?
Ask the Mayor, "How can a Cushingite be an Archbishop?"
Ask the Lega Senators, "How can a Cushingite be the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and support a Cushingite Archbishop in Ferrara ?"
Ask the Mayor, " Are you a Feeneyite or Cushingite on EENS and Vatican Council II ?". He must answer, 'Feeneyite'.This is the rational response.
There must be a video showing how the Mayor interprets Church documents with Feeneyism.While the Archbishop rejects Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms and the dogma EENS, with Cushingism.Yet he has suppressed the young priests.This is the same Archbishop who opposes Salvini on immigration and publically praises Garibaldi.
The young group must know that they have the moral authority and the CDF and the Archbishop are unethical. Cushingism creates an artificial rupture with Sacred Tradition.It is a lie. It is deception.
The second advantage they have is that they are an organized group, intelligent and professional.This can be seen in the film.
Ask the Mayor, 'Does he know of any one in Ferrara, Bologna or elsewhere saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and without Catholic faith and the baptism of water ?'' He will say, 'No'. This is common sense. Only God can know if any one is saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire etc.
With that 'No', Alan Fabri would be affirming EENS ( Feeneyite), Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and the Creeds and Catechisms(Feeneyite). This is the traditional theological basis for the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all law and politics.The priority is to save souls with the non separation of the Catholic Church and a Catholic State.Since outside the Church there is no salvation, no known salvation.
So a simple question like, "Do you know any one saved in invincible ignorance in 1965-2020 ?" has political consequences.
When this is understood by Catholics in general Archbishop Peregro would be morally forced to accept a Feeneyite interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS.
But then, he would be conservative, like the priests of the Familia Christi whom he has suppressed.-Lionel Andrades
March 5, 2020
Alan Fabri, the Mayor of Ferrara must not accept Archbishop Peregro as
officially and legally being a Catholic, until he affirms Vatican
Council II, the dogma EENS (without exceptions, otherwise it would be
irrational ), the Creeds and Catechisms, all interpreted rationally. How
can the Lega Mayor accept an archbishop who does not affirm Vatican
Council II ? (Graphics )
All
the books and articles on Vatican Council II in Italy were written with
a false premise, inference and conclusion.Lionel's Blog is an
exception.Salvini's Lega political party could take up this issue in the
Italian Senate
The
political party Lega Salvini needs to take up the issue in the Italian
Senate of the Italian priests Fathers Riccardo Petroni, Matteo Riboli,
Lorenzo Mazzetti di Pietralata, Emanuele Lonardi and Enrico D'Urso
deprived of the status of being a priest and made lay men, by Archbishop
Peregro in Ferrara, who rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus(EENS) with an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II,
supported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF),
Vatican
John
XXIII Foundation for Religious Sciences (FSCIRE), the "Bologna School,
interprets Vatican Council II with the common false premise.There is no
transparency on this issue
U.S
State Department : Catholics must have the right not to interpret
Church documents with a false premise, inference and conclusion and so
be tolerated when they affirm Vatican Council II ( without the false
premise), the Creeds and Catechisms( without the false premise), the
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( without the false premise), the
baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance(without the
false premise) and Church documents and magisterial teachings
interpreted without the false premise, inference and conclusion
Posts
