The Foundation Exsurge Domini assists consecrated Catholic religious who have been cancelled. These religious now have a new theological and doctrinal model, explained on this blog, Eucharist and Mission, to canonically, inform their bishop that they, the bishops, are in heresy and schism, when they choose to use the irrational and not rational model of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Here it is. 1
This model is shown in this blog post: A cardinal in public heresy and schism is not authorized to conduct a trial on behalf of the DDF. He does not meet the juridical conditions. The DDF has not denied these specific charges posted on social media over the years
It can be used against the liberal and schismatic Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), and the local bishop, who supports political liberalism and dissent against Jesus and His Mystical Body the Catholic Church, based upon Vatican Council II (irrational).
1. The DDF accepts Vatican Council II, irrational only and not Vatican Council II rational i.e. with LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being hypothetical, physically invisible cases in 2024.So the DDF, like Pope Francis, is not in communion with the popes over the centuries, before 1949. There is no continuity.
2.The DDF, chooses the irrational premise, Cushingism, to interpret Magisterial Documents and the CDF before 1949 interpreted all Magisterial Documents only with the rational premise i.e. for example, the baptism of desire refers to a hypothetical case only.
3. So the CDF before 1949 was Feeneyite and the DDF today is Cushingite.
4. Cushingism, produces heresy and schism, irrespective of who uses it. So there can be a liberal or traditionalist, Cushingite.The DDF today is not the same, doctrinally and theologically, as the CDF before 1949. There is no continuity.
5.The DDF lacks authority and competence. It cannot interpret Magisterial Documents irrationally and be Magisterial.So it does not represent the pre-1949 CDF. There is also a break with the teachings of the Apostles and the Church Fathers.
6.The canonical conditions required for the trial do not exist.The plaintiffs are Cushingites and so are the judges.
These six points must be considered by canonists and presented to the local bishop and the DDF by cancelled priests.
Fr. Alessandro M. Minutella, for example, and other cancelled priests, must demand that Archbishop Corrado Lorefice, the archbishop of Palermo, appointed by Pope Francis in 2015, must interpret Vatican Council II, only rationally. Once he does this, he returns to the Tradition of the cancelled priests here.
Legally, in the secular courts the Archbishop Lorefice, cannot continue to interpret LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, as being physically invisible cases in 2024. He must admit that they are only hypothetical cases.
The Curia at Palermo, Italy must also interpret Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Councils, Catechisms etc) with Feeneyism ( invisible people are invisible in 2024) and not Cushingism ( invisible cases are visible in 2024).
Similarly in the USA, the Coalition for Cancelled Priests/ Alliance for Cancelled Priests can approach the liberal USCCB by using the L.A interpretation of Vatican Council II and Magisterial Documents.- Lionel Andrades
1
A cardinal in public heresy and schism is not authorized to conduct a trial on behalf of the DDF. He does not meet the juridical conditions. The DDF has not denied these specific charges posted on social media over the years
Before any schism trial is initiated the Catholic defendant must inform the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), Vatican that 1) he accepts Vatican Council II rational and not Vatican Council II, irrational. 2) He accepts and interprets rationally all Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Councils, Catechisms etc). 3) He is in communion with all the popes over the centuries before 1949, who were Feeneyite and not Cushingite.When what is invisible is considered invisible only I call it Feeneyism. When what is invisible is considered visible, I call it Cushingism. So Vatican Council II ( LG 16 etc) can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism and the conclusion will be traditional or non traditional.
The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney, was Cushingite.
The Athanasius Creed, when it was issued, was Feeneyite i.e there were no exceptions for the de fide teaching on all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation. There were no defacto exceptions, no visible-on-earth exceptions.
The DDF must be informed that it is the understanding of the defendant that the DDF is in heresy and schism since 1) the DDF accepts Vatican Council II, irrational only and not Vatican Council II rational i.e. with LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being hypothetical, physically invisible cases in 2024.So the DDF, like Pope Francis, is not in communion with the popes over the centuries, before 1949. There is no continuity.The DDF, chooses the irrational premise, Cushingism, to interpret Magisterial Documents and the CDF before 1949 interpreted all Magisterial Documents only with the rational premise i.e. for example, the baptism of desire refers to a hypothetical case only. So the CDF before 1949 was Feeneyite and the DDF today is Cushingite.
Cushingism, produces heresy and schism, irrespective of who uses it. So there can be a liberal or traditionalist, Cushingite.
The DDF today is not the same, doctrinally and theologically, as the CDF before 1949. There is no continuity. The DDF lacks authority and competence. It cannot interpret Magisterial Documents irrationally and be Magisterial.So it does not represent the pre-1949 CDF. There is also a break with the teachings of the Apostles and the Church Fathers.
The canonical conditions required for the trial do not exist.The plaintiffs are Cushingites and so are the judges.
A cardinal in public heresy and schism is not authorized to conduct a trial on behalf of the DDF. The Secretaries and other members of the DDF do not meet the juridical conditions mentioned above.
The DDF has not denied these specific charges posted on social media over the years.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/07/before-any-schism-trial-is-initiated.html
https://exsurgedomine.it/ https://exsurgedomineusa.org/
________________________________________
A cardinal in public heresy and schism is not authorized to conduct a trial on behalf of the DDF. He does not meet the juridical conditions. The DDF has not denied these specific charges posted on social media over the years
Before any schism trial is initiated the Catholic defendant must inform the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), Vatican that 1) he accepts Vatican Council II rational and not Vatican Council II, irrational. 2) He accepts and interprets rationally all Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Councils, Catechisms etc). 3) He is in communion with all the popes over the centuries before 1949, who were Feeneyite and not Cushingite.When what is invisible is considered invisible only I call it Feeneyism. When what is invisible is considered visible, I call it Cushingism. So Vatican Council II ( LG 16 etc) can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism and the conclusion will be traditional or non traditional.
The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney, was Cushingite.
The Athanasius Creed, when it was issued, was Feeneyite i.e there were no exceptions for the de fide teaching on all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation. There were no defacto exceptions, no visible-on-earth exceptions.
The DDF must be informed that it is the understanding of the defendant that the DDF is in heresy and schism since 1) the DDF accepts Vatican Council II, irrational only and not Vatican Council II rational i.e. with LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being hypothetical, physically invisible cases in 2024.So the DDF, like Pope Francis, is not in communion with the popes over the centuries, before 1949. There is no continuity.The DDF, chooses the irrational premise, Cushingism, to interpret Magisterial Documents and the CDF before 1949 interpreted all Magisterial Documents only with the rational premise i.e. for example, the baptism of desire refers to a hypothetical case only. So the CDF before 1949 was Feeneyite and the DDF today is Cushingite.
Cushingism, produces heresy and schism, irrespective of who uses it. So there can be a liberal or traditionalist, Cushingite.
The DDF today is not the same, doctrinally and theologically, as the CDF before 1949. There is no continuity. The DDF lacks authority and competence. It cannot interpret Magisterial Documents irrationally and be Magisterial.So it does not represent the pre-1949 CDF. There is also a break with the teachings of the Apostles and the Church Fathers.
The canonical conditions required for the trial do not exist.The plaintiffs are Cushingites and so are the judges.
A cardinal in public heresy and schism is not authorized to conduct a trial on behalf of the DDF. The Secretaries and other members of the DDF do not meet the juridical conditions mentioned above.
The DDF has not denied these specific charges posted on social media over the years.-Lionel Andrades
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
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
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
Posts
