It is Cushingism (invisible people are visible) which produce heresy and schism irrespective if the person is a liberal or traditionalist.Cushingism is like an epidemic in the Church. It has infected even cardinals Burke and Sarah.

 

It is Cushingism (invisible people are visible) which produces heresy and schism irrespective if the person is a liberal or traditionalist.Cushingism is like an epidemic in the Church. It has infected even cardinals Burke and Sarah.

Over the centuries the Church was Feeneyite (invisible people are invisible, the baptism of desire refers to an invisible case) as a philosophy.So there was only the traditional theology with no liberalism.

With Vatican Council II (rational), which produces Feeneyism there no more, is liberalism from the Council and so the traditionalist-liberal division is finished. The Council is traditionalist.

When the Council is traditionalist, the pope has to be traditionalist or he has to scrap the Council. Then there is no reason for bishops to go into sedevacantism and start new communities.

When there is no liberalism from Vatican Council II, the division in the Church ends.

- Lionel Andrades

JULY 6, 2024

Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez Prefect of the DDF was not eligible to issue the Decree against Archbishop Vigano canonically : since he was interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally and there was no denial on social media

 

 MAY 24, 2024

Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, is interpreting Vatican Council II, the Catechism f the Catholic Church and the Creeds and Councils ( Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc) with irrational Cushingism. This is being dishonest. It would also be illegal. How can he be trusted?

 

Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, is interpreting Vatican Council II, the Catechism f the Catholic Church and the Creeds and Councils ( Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus  etc) with irrational Cushingism. This is being dishonest. It would also be illegal. How can he be trusted? - Lionel Andrades

 MAY 20, 2024

Definition : fake premise, inference and conclusion and the rational premise, inference and conclusion.

 

The common fake premise is – invisible people are physically visible in 2024.

The common fake inference is – there are physically visible non Catholics in 2024 saved outside the Catholic Church without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.

So the conclusion; the expected false conclusion is that Vatican Council II is a rupture with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. This is a New Theology in the Church. It says outside the Church there is known salvation.

All this reasoning I call Cushingism. This process of bad reasoning is common among the Cushingite popes, cardinals and bishops.

The rational premise is – invisible people are invisible in 2024. Lumen Gentium 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only.

The rational inference is – there are no physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in 2024 without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.

The traditional and rational conclusion is that Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. There are no objective exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence (1441), the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q ) and the rest of Tradition.We are back to the old theology of the Roman Missal.

I call this reasoning Feeneyism.

Feeneyism and Cushingism, for me, refer to a way of thinking and not the two well known persons, Cardinal Richard Cushing and Fr. Leonard Feeney. 

I interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with Feeneyism. Cardinal Richard Cushing and the popes from Pius XII interpreted them with Cushingism.

I interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism ( invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 16 etc are invisible in 2024). Pope Paul VI and the popes who followed used Cushingism ( invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 14 are physically visible in 1965-2024).

In the 1920s and 1930's the Catholic Church was Feeneyite. Today it is Cushingite.

-Lionel Andrades

Mary, Mother of the Church

Something new came into the Church in 1949 and then 1965 and then some 15 years back

 

Something new came into the Catholic Church in 1949 with the Letter of the Holy Office (CDF/DDF) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. It presented invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).This mistake was repeated at Vatican Council II (1965) and so again something new, entered the Church. It was Vatican Council II, irrational.

There was a new way of looking at things, a new philosophy. It produced a new theology which says outside the Church there is known salvation, in particular cases and so the dogma EENS was contradicted. The past ecclesiology was made obsolete.

Now some 15 years back something new has come into the Church. It is Vatican Council II, rational. Cushingism and Feeneyism have been identified. We can now, at will, choose the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition. The Catholic Church returns to pre-1949 times. Morally, now there is only one way to interpret Vatican Council II. It is with Feeneyism and not Cushingism. It is with the rational premise and not the irrational premise. It is not confusing what is invisible (example Lumen Gentium 16) as referring to physically visible cases in 1965-2024.- Lionel Andrades

JULY 17, 2024

If Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez announce that LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to hypothetical cases only then it is the liberals who are in schism.But so is the New Theology, New Ecumenism and New Ecclesiology

 

If Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez announce that LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to hypothetical cases only: they refer to invisible people in 2024, then it is the liberals who are in schism. Since then they have to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed. They do not do it now. They say Tradition has been made obsolete with Vatican Council II. They mean Vatican Council II irrational only. They also are unable to make the Vatican Council II rational and irrational distinction for them they will be exposed. With Vatican Council II, rational, they will be able to affirm the Athanasius Creed etc and they do not want to do this.

So with their dissent, not being supported by Vatican Council II ( rational )  any more, they are in schism with the Catholic Church over the centuries.

But it also means that the New Theology based upon invisible people being visible, the New Ecumenism (with visible exceptions for an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church) are also schismatic and heretical.

The liberalism from Vatican Council II, irrational, is schismatic. It is something foreign in the Church.

That ‘something foreign’ , ‘something new’ entered the Church when the CDF/Holy Office, confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The mistake in public was repeated by Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani in 1965.It was not corrected by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger..

So when traditionalists say that they are only following Tradition and nothing new, they are wrong.

 Something new came into the Church.This was a mistake made by Christopher Ferrara and John Vennari.They were making the same mistake as the liberals. Both groups were interpreting Vatican Council II, irrationally and did not know about Vatican Council II, rational.

Then some 15 years back something new, was further discovered. It was Vatican Council II rational, which is not being followed by the liberals and conservatives.

Vatican Council II, rational, was not known to Fr. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari, Christopher Ferrara, Archbishop Lefebvre, Romano Amerio and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano.

The same mistake is being made today by Michael Matt, Peter Kwasniewski. John Henry Weston, the sedevacantists Bishops Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunas…..  - Lionel Andrades

FRIDAY, JULY 19, 2024

Something new came into the Church in 1949 and then 1965 and then some 15 years back

 

Something new came into the Catholic Church in 1949 with the Letter of the Holy Office (CDF/DDF) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. It presented invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).This mistake was repeated at Vatican Council II (1965) and so again something new, entered the Church. It was Vatican Council II, irrational.

There was a new way of looking at things, a new philosophy. It produced a new theology which says outside the Church there is known salvation, in particular cases and so the dogma EENS was contradicted. The past ecclesiology was made obsolete.

Now some 15 years back something new has come into the Church. It is Vatican Council II, rational. Cushingism and Feeneyism have been identified. We can now, at will, choose the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition. The Catholic Church returns to pre-1949 times. Morally, now there is only one way to interpret Vatican Council II. It is with Feeneyism and not Cushingism. It is with the rational premise and not the irrational premise. It is not confusing what is invisible (example Lumen Gentium 16) as referring to physically visible cases in 1965-2024.

- Lionel Andrades

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2015

Ecclesiology is not changed with I.I and BOD.It never was.Vatican Council II was always orthodox on salvation.The ecclesiology was exclusivist.

To create a new ecclesiology something new must be added. This 'something new' was being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and that these cases were allegedly inferred to be known to us personally.This was how they did it!

'Being known to us personally' was the something new.With this premise cardinals Marchetti and Cushing could create a new ecclesiology.

Baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were mentioned by some popes.What was new, was Marchetti-Cushing linking BOD and I.I to the dogma as an exception.

In the past I.I and BOD were irrelevant to the dogma. Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston active at Vatican Council II along with the Jesuits linked it to the dogma and made it relevant.He excommunicated Fr.Leonard Feeney.

In the past, it was always irrelevant to the dogma since hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions in the present times.They made it relevant at Vatican Council II,implying that these cases were personally known to us, so they become exceptions.They became exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the only interpretation of the dogma associated with the Old Mass.

This is the new ecclesiology.We now have the missing link.Avoid the premise and you are back to the old ecclesiology.You can even offer the New Mass along with the old ecclesiology.The real issue is doctrine and not liturgy.

Notice it in Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7) but skirt around it and the orthodox passages remain.

For me , I.I and BOD must be followed with the baptism of water.This is the de fide teaching in the dogma. i.e every one needs the baptism of water for salvation.

It is not a dogma that BOD and I.I are the ordinary means of salvation or that they must exclude the baptism of water.

So we can affirm the orthodox passages of Vatican Council II without the Cushing addition and ecclesiology will not have changed.

ORTHODOX PASSAGES

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

 

Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. -Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

 

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

CUSHING ADDITIONS

Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

 

If someone insists on interpreting the Cushing Addition, saying that the baptism of water must not follow, tell him that we do not and cannot know of any such case today (April 15,2015 for example ).There cannot be a known exception to the orthodox passages.So there are really no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.

So ecclesiology is not changed with I.I and BOD.It never was.Vatican Council II was always orthodox on salvation.The ecclesiology was exclusivist.
-Lionel Andrades

Joseph Shaw would not say that all need to formally enter the Church for salvation in Britain. This would be the old ecclesiology.Instead he would say that there are exceptions. This is the new ecclesiology.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/joseph-shaw-would-not-say-that-all-need.html

SATURDAY, JULY 13, 2024

In 1965 something new came into the Church. It was Vatican Council II irrational. Some 15 years back something new, further, has come into the Church. It is Vatican Council II, rational.

 

Before 1949 the Catholic Church was traditional. Today it is nontraditional and liberal. In the past it was orthodox .Today it is heretical and schismatic.

In the past the popes interpreted the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally. Today they interpret Magisterial Documents irrationally. It is all there in public for anyone to check it.

In the past the mainstream Church was orthodox today it is heretical and schismatic.

In 1965 something new came into the Church. It was Vatican Council II irrational.

Some 15 years back something new, further, has come into the Church. It is Vatican Council II, rational.

- Lionel Andrades

WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2024

Novus Ordo priests who accept Vatican Council II and interpret it rationally and not irrationally, could also be considered schismatic by Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez. In the past schism was teaching something new, now schism is not accepting what is new. It is not accepting the liberalism which comes from Vatican Council II interpreted dishonestly.

 

Novus Ordo priests who accept Vatican Council II and interpret it rationally and not irrationally, could also be considered schismatic by Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez. In the past schism was teaching something new, now schism is not accepting  what is new. It is not accepting the liberalism which comes from Vatican Council II interpreted dishonestly. So if you do not accept the ‘reforms’ of Vatican Council II then you have not accepted Vatican Council II, irrational. You could belong to a sect but not the Catholic Church.

So the priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass could be in schism like the SSPX priests if they accepted Vatican Council II interpreted rationally and so in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

For Archbishop Vigano, Pope Francis is in schism since he does not support the past popes and the past Magisterium on the Athanasius Creed etc.Pope Francis does not deny this. He says that Vatican Council II (interpreted irrationally) is a break with Tradition. So he rejects the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. For him the baptism of desire, refers to physically visible cases in 1949-2024.

So the schism charge is specific .It is only for those who do not accept Vatican Council II (irrational).Even those who accept Vatican Council II rational could be in schism. Their interpretation of Vatican Council II would not be magisterial for Pope Francis.

So one’s concept of schism- which is now something new in the Church- must not be restricted to those who go for the Latin Mass.

Since even those Catholics who are not in communion with the pope, who  support the popes over the centuries would be in schism. For Pope Francis the popes over centuries are made obsolete with Vatican Council II irrational.

If a Catholic accepts the teachings of the popes, over the centuries in specific cases, then he or she is  schismatic since they have rejected Vatican Council II, irrational.

- Lionel Andrades

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2013

Cardinal Koch indicates Blessed Pope Pius XII made a mistake

Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and relations with the Jews, Vatican has indicated in an article in the L'Osservatore Romano (Nov.12,2013) that an objective error overlooked by Pope PIus XII has resulted in two extreme views in the Catholic Church on Vatican Council II.

 

Here is a translated passage from Cardinal Kurt Koch's article in Italian in the L'Osservatore Romano (Nov. 12, 2013) in which he indicates Pope Pius XII made a mistake. (1)

 

This effort has certainly not lost any of its relevance now that we are to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of Vatican II. On the contrary , it has become even more urgent especially if we bear in mind the trends, long dominant to this important event, they see the council a break with the tradition of the Church, and this , in two directions : on the one hand, progressive currents continue to understand the council as the end of the previous ecclesial tradition and the beginning of something new.

Lionel: Pope Pius XII made a mistake in the Boston Heresy Case. Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy.So now  LG 16 (invincible ignorance) is a break with Tradition.So Vatican Council II has begun something new.

 

 How to break with tradition the Vatican is interpreted on the other side , from the traditionalist current , which accuse him of having given birth to a new church , no longer identical to that existed until then.

Lionel: According to Cardinal Kurt Koch the traditionalists assume there are known cases of salvation which are exceptions to the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Error.The Council has given birth to new doctrines and a new church.This has originated from the Boston Case in which the pope had made a mistake.
It is therefore no coincidence that these two extreme tendencies , already on a linguistic level , agree on making a distinction between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church , as if the Church was no longer the same before and after the council .

Lionel: The 'extreme tendencies' originated in Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII . The pope let Cushingism go unchecked.Yes the Church is no longer  the same before and after Vatican Council II if you use the false premise of being able to see the dead who are saved.Cardinal Kurt Koch too assumes  these cases are living exceptions to Tradition.

 The difference between the two trends is that while the progressive empathic supports a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture ,

Lionel: There is a hermeneutic of rupture, correct.There was also a hermeneutic of reupture in the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It is the premise which determines the hermeneutic.Without the irrational premise there is a hermeneutic of continuity.

the traditionalist favors hermeneutic of simple , ahistorical continuity ,

Lionel: This was  there in magisterial documents before the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

but in reference to the Second Vatican Council , is revealed also a hermeneutic of rupture.

Lionel: The traditionalists also can only interpret the Council with the false premise.They are not aware that  Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise.They indicate indirectly, that Pope Pius XII made a mistake. He gave birth to a new theology and ecclesiology.

 From both perspectives , the Vatican is no longer considered as part of the living tradition of the Church, existed until then, but as its end.

Lionel: If you use a false premise with any Church document there will be a break with the past.It happened during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.

 

Once of course this error is corrected Vatican Council II is traditional on the issue of Christian communities and churches and the Jews.

 

Cardinal Koch is misrepresenting the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, may be unintentionally.Since the Letter does not state that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy but that it was for disobedience. It also does not state that the baptism of desire etc are cases known to us.Neither does it say that being saved in invincible ignorance the baptism of desire is a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Cardinal Koch and the liberals take all this for granted as if it is a fact mentioned in the Letter.

 

The Letter could be indicating that Fr.Leonard Feeney was rejecting the baptism of desire etc as a possibility.Though in the book, The Bread of Life, it is clear that Fr.Leonard Feeney accepted that a catechumen could have a genuine desire, an implicit desire. This could result in justification.So he accepted implicit desire as a possibility.

 

Who has an implcit desire and how he wil be saved, whether it will be justification only or also with salvation, is unknown to us. It is known only to God. Fr.Leonard Feeney said frankly, "I don't know".

 

 KOCH AND KASPAR WILLING TO SETTLE FOR LESS

 

Cardinal Kurt  Koch is telling us that he knows! He  personally knows cases saved with implicit desire etc. He indicates Pope Pius XII also 'knew'.

 

Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church No Salvation.AG 7 says all need faith and baptism. Cardinal Koch cannot name anyone in 2013 among Christians and Jews, who do not need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.

 

So the Council is traditional. It agrees with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.Ecclesiology has not changed on the issue of other religions and Christian communities and churches.If there were known exceptions  then there could be a new ecclesiology, a theology of religions and 'extreme tendencies'.

 

Cardinal Koch and Cardinal Kaspar probably know this by now.They could be  willing to settle for something less rather than say that Vatican Council II is traditional. Cardinal Kaspar says the Council is 'ambigous' and Cardinal Koch says there are 'extreme tendencies'.

Some traditionalists have picked up their bait.

-Lionel Andrades

 

1.http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?JSPTabContainer.setSelected=JSPTabContainer%2FDetail&last=false=&path=/news/cultura/2013/259q13-La-recezione-del-concilio-Vaticano-II-e-l-i.html&title=Dove%20si%20abbracciano%20%20tradizione%20e%20rinnovamento&locale=it

 

Sedevacantists, traditionalists,Departments of Theology suggest Blessed Pope Pius XII made a mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/11/sedevacantists-traditionalistsdepartmen.html#links

SATURDAY, JUNE 9, 2018

Lepanto Foundation conference this month in Rome is expected to be another non committal, prudent meeting among friends : the real problem and its solution is too sensitive for them to discuss and proclaim

A Conference organised by the Lepanto Foundation will be held on June 23 in Rome. It recognizes the problem of the New Theology.It does not however know the precise cause of the New Theology and so how to avoid it in the interpretation of Magisterial documents. They do not know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without this Cushingite theology and then the Council would be in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors  and the old ecclesiology of the Church.

Even though some of the Council Fathers, the dominant ones,  were using the New Theology, Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the New Theology because of the limitation of the error; the limitation of the New Theology.The inherent limitation is that hypothetical cases can only be interpreted in real life as being hypothetical.There is no choice. Even if the liberals project Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 16 etc, as referring to objective people saved outside the Church, and so create a new false theology,LG 8 will always refer to invisible people in 2018.The liberals can only hope and speculate that someone will be saved outside the Church, without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).They are limited. Since there cannot be practical exceptions, for us human beings,  to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the old ecclesiology of the Church.

CONFERENCE SPEAKERS APPROVED BY THE POLITICAL LEFT

May be this is not known to most of the speakers of the conference approved by the political Left.So this meeting is expected to be another of the many conferences ( Catholic Identity, Angelus etc) in which speakers will go around in circles, repeating what they said the previous years.Since they have not put their finger on the precise problem i.e the use of a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition and,the non use of that false premise, to interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with Tradition.





SPEAKERS CHOOSE TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT
Then even if they know that they can interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors, they would not be politically correct with Left and the Vatican.This  is a practical problem for them.

If they wanted,they could eliminate the premise and change the Church, bringing it back on its traditional theological rails.But the politically safe speakers will only be repeating themselves and telling us what we already know.

THEY WILL NOT AFFIRM THE SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING IN HARMONY WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II AND EENS ( FEENEYITE)

It would be something, if they said in public that they affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation in harmony with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite-without the premise), EENS( Feeneyite-without the premise) and the Catechisms, interpreted  with invisible for us baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I).


The  Creed interpreted without Cushingism, so  hypothetical cases are not hypothetical and there are not three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins which exclude the baptism of water and the Holy Spirit does not teach the Church to proclaim irrationality and innovation. So without the error, they would saying that there is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church,  before and after Vatican Council II for them.


THEY WILL NOT AFFIRM TRADITIONAL MISSION IN PUBLIC
There is traditional Mission knowing that most people die outside the Church and so are oriented to Hell.All non Catholics who have died with no known exceptions are in Hell. Since the ordinary means of salvation is 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) and not BOD, BOB and I.I or LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc.

THEY WILL NOT SAY THAT THE NEW ECUMENISM , NEW EVANGELISATION ETC IS BASED ON A THEOLOGICAL ERROR

This would be something.They would be saying in public that there is no known salvation outside the Church, something obvious and so they would have to reject the New Theology.Since it is based on known salvation outside the Church,it's foundation is visible and objective cases of non Catholics saved with BOD, BOB and I.I.They would have to reject the New Ecumenism created upon an irrationality.

The New Ecclesiology, New Canon Law and New Evangelisation based on Cushingite theology would be meaningless and obsolete.They would have to reject the Balamand Declaration which uses the same false premise.

Can they say all this?

No.

They have to protect their reputation,lifestyle etc. This is how they think.These are their values and priorities.

PRUDENT SPEAKERS
So the conference will be another enjoyable meeting among friends.It was made possible since the organizers  received the donations to hold this non-committal and prudent meeting.

The speakers will include Abbé Claude Barthe, Prof. Roberto de Mattei,Prof. Valerio Gigliotti, Dr. Maria Guarini, Fr. Albert Kallio O.P.,Dr. John Lamont, Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli,Prof. don Alberto Strumia, Prof. Giovanni Turco, Dr. José Antonio Ureta and Dr.Joseph Shaw.The title fo the conference is Old and new Modernism: the roots of the Church’s crisis-Lionel Andrades

MAY 27, 2018

Liberals cannot criticize Cardinal Raymond Burke since he accepts Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite),in harmony with EENS ( Feeneyite),the Syllabus of Errors,an ecumenism and the Social Reign of Christ the King : traditionalists at conf. next month support the New Theology

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/05/liberals-cannot-accuse-cardinal-raymond.html

THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2022

The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance can be interpreted according to Feeneyism or Cushingism, one approach is irrational

 

 DECEMBER 3, 2015

The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance can be interpreted according to Feeneyism or Cushingism, one approach is irrational

In the previous blog post  I mentioned that we can interpret Vatican Council II with either Feeneyism or Cushingism. 1 Here I would like to say that we can also interpret other Church documents with Feeneyism or Cushingism.

Also the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I)  can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism.I choose Feeneyism since it is traditional and rational.

For instance the baptism of desire refers to the case of a catechumen  who desires to receive the baptism of water but dies before receiving it.

With Feeneyism the baptism of desire is a hypothetical case and so not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Being invisible for us and known only to God, it cannot be an exception to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.It does not exist in our reality. 

With Cushingism the baptism of desire is  an exception to the dogma EENs. It  is an example of salvation outside the Church.It is an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma.In other words it is explicit for us for it to be an exception.

Explicit for us?!! These cases are in Heaven. So how can they be explicit for us? Who are these exceptions? What are their names ? 

There are none.

It is based on this irrationality that the theology of Cushingism was created.It is an innovation, it is fantasy theology. It is heresy and it has been  accepted by the contemporary Magisterium.

 I choose Feeneyism.It was the theology of St. Francis Xavier whose feast day is today.

I can  interpret ' seeds of the Word'(AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),  ' a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men' (NA 2), 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as referring to hypothetical, invisible for us cases.This is common sense. So they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. This is the Feeneyite approach.Hypothetical cases cannot be examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times.There is no salvation outside the Church.

For a Cushingite these are all explicit cases, seen for example in 2015,in real life. So they are examples of salvation outside the Church, for the Cushingites.Ghosts are exceptions.

Similarly for me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston suggests the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions or relevant to the Feeneyite version of the dogma.

This is irrational, non traditional and heretical for me, as a Feeneyite.

So for me the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) CCC 157 ( the Necessity of Baptism ) and CCC 846 ( Outside the Church there is no salvation) do not contradict the traditional interpretation of the dogma. As a Feeneyite I cannot see any objective case of someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic  Church.
Similarly for me BOD and I.I should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II. In LG 14 and AG 7 these are superfluous passages, Cushing Additions, dead wood. They are not relevant or exceptions to the orthodox passages preceding them.
Also BOD and BOB should not have been placed in the baptism section of the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius XII. We can administer the baptism of water but we cannot give any one BOD and BOB. We can repeat and see the baptism of water but this is not the case with BOD and BOB. So in this sense they are not baptisms like the baptism of water.So placing BOD and BOB in the Baptism Section of those catechisms was confusing.
The Council of Trent only mentions 'the desiretherof'. It does not state that these cases are explicit or are exceptions to the dogma EENS. 
The bottom line is that the Catholic Church in its magisterial documents ( Vatican Council II, CCC etc) has not changed its old ecclesiology for a Feeneyite.I can attend the Traditional  Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass and the ecclesiology is still exclusivist.

For me Pope Pius XII made a mistake. It was Archbishop Richard Cushing who was in heresy and it was Fr. Leonard Feeney who was  de fide. It was the Jesuits and the Holy Office 1949 which had made an objective error with their Dead Man Walking theory, their visible-dead theology.

-Lionel Andrades



1
It is the same Vatican Council II but interpreted with two different theologies
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/it-is-same-vatican-council-ii-but.html

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2013

Sedevacantists, traditionalists,Departments of Theology suggest Blessed Pope Pius XII made a mistake

Sedevacantists and traditionalists just like the Department of Theology at the Holy Cross , Angelicum and Urbaniana universities indicate that Pope Pius XII made an objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

 

The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX-N. America) on their websites and books have repeated that the Holy Office condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney for his rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and for not accepting the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.

So it means Pope Pius XII considered the baptism of desire etc as being visible and known to us. He assumed we can see the dead who are saved with the baptism of desire etc.

This is an objective error. It is a fact that we cannot see the dead so how can they be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to convert into the Church?

 

This is also the teaching at the universities Holy Cross, Angelicum, Urbaniana, Regina Apostolorum and the seminaries in Rome.They are making the same mistake as the sedevantists etc.

 

Similarly the sedevacantists CMRI (Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculate) state on their website that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma on salvation. They too are saying that Pope Pius XII made a mistake.

 

 The Angelus Press of the SSPX (N.America) has published a book written by an SSPX priest Fr.Francois Laisney  which indicates that Blessed Pope Pius XII made a mistake. The book does not say it directly but when it is assumed that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy, it is implied that the baptism of desire etc are visible to us.They are visible  for them to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.So Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy for them.Since he did not say he could see cases on earth saved with the baptism of desire.

 

 For all of them salvation in Heaven in 2013 would be visible to us physically.

 

Then the sedevacantists, traditionalists and other Catholics have extended this rationale to Vatican Council II. LG 16 (invincible ignorance) refer to physically visible cases. So many reports on the Internet state LG 16 is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

Here is Cardinal Kurt Koch confirming the error in an article in Italian in the L'Osservatore Romano (Nov. 12, 2013). (1)

 

This effort has certainly not lost any of its relevance now that we are to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of Vatican II. On the contrary , it has become even more urgent especially if we bear in mind the trends, long dominant to this important event, they see the council a break with the tradition of the Church, and this , in two directions : on the one hand, progressive currents continue to understand the council as the end of the previous ecclesial tradition and the beginning of something new.

Lionel: Since the progressives assume that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy,  it means  LG 16 (invincible ignorance) is a break with Tradition.So Vatican Council II has begun something new.

 How to break with tradition the Vatican is interpreted on the other side , from the traditionalist current , which accuse him of having given birth to a new church , no longer identical to that existed until then.

Lionel: Correct since they are all assuming there are known cases of salvation which are exceptions to the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Error.The Council has given birth to new doctrines and a new church.
It is therefore no coincidence that these two extreme tendencies , already on a linguistic level , agree on making a distinction between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church , as if the Church was no longer the same before and after the council .

Lionel: Yes the Church is no longer  the same before and after Vatican Council II if you use the false premise of being able to see the dead who are saved.Cardinal Kurt Koch too assumes  these cases are living exceptions to Tradition.

 The difference between the two trends is that while the progressive empathic supports a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture ,

Lionel: There is a hermeneutic of rupture, correct. It is the premise which determines the hermeneutic.Without the irrational premise there is a hermeneutic of continuity.

the traditionalist favors hermeneutic of simple , ahistorical continuity ,

Lionel: This was  there in magisterial documents before the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

but in reference to the Second Vatican Council , is revealed also a hermeneutic of rupture.

Lionel: The traditionalists also can only interpret the Council with the false premise.They are not aware that  Vatican Council II can also be interpreted without the false premise.

 From both perspectives , the Vatican is no longer considered as part of the living tradition of the Church, existed until then, but as its end.

Lionel: If you use a false premise with any Church document there will be a break with the past.

 -Lionel Andrades

1.
http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?JSPTabContainer.setSelected=JSPTabContainer%2FDetail&last=false=&path=/news/cultura/2013/259q13-La-recezione-del-concilio-Vaticano-II-e-l-i.html&title=Dove%20si%20abbracciano%20%20tradizione%20e%20rinnovamento&locale=it

 

Cardinal Kurt Koch's straw house is leaking.It could collapse any time

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/11/cardinal-kurt-kochs-straw-house-is.html#links