Tuesday, April 28, 2015

The SSPX must keep rejecting Vatican Council II according to Cushingism.

Why should the SSPX accept Vatican Council II with an irrational premise, inference and conclusion to receive canonical status? No one seems to be answering this question. Even those who say that the SSPX are in schism are keeping silent.
Why should not the SSPX like me accept Vatican Council II in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Why does the Vatican Curia and Church Militant.com also not do the same?
Why cannot Catholic school children in Detroit accept Vatican Council II in agreement with the strict interpretation of the dogma ?
Members of the St. Francis of Assisi School choir from Ann Arbor sing a selection during a March 19 festival sponsored by the American Federation Pueri Cantores at the Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament.Why cannot they say that Vatican Council II indicates everyone needs to be ' a card carrying ' member of the Church for salvation?
Numerous times I have explained my position on this blog.No one shows me where I am right or wrong.There is no critical report. So I assume that they all agree with my reasoning,though many may not like the conclusion i.e Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.
I affirm Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 in Vatican Council II.It says all need faith and baptism for salvation. While there are no exceptions for me mentioned  in Vatican Council II. This is Feeneyism.This is traditional exclusivist ecclesiology. This says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church ( with faith and baptism) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. You are either a card carrying member or you are not.For salvation in 2015 every one needs to have his name on the parish register.
So why cannot the SSPX and the CDF  interpret Vatican Council II as I do ?
Why must the SSPX, like cardinals Muller, Koch and Kasper use Cushingism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
 Cushingism says Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Cushingism says LG 16 refers to known cases in the present times saved without the baptism of water. Persons saved in inculpable ignorance are known in the present times.They would have to be known in 2015 to be an exception to the dogma.
They would have to be seen to be exceptions to all needing to be card carrying members of the Catholic Church to be saved.Their names and surnames would have to be known - but, these people are in Heaven.They are known only to God.Invisible cases cannot be exceptions.
The magisterium must not force Catholics to accept this irrationality.
How can invisible persons be exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma ?
This is Cushingism. This is the interpretation of Vatican Council II which the Magisterium wants the SSPX to accept.
This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846,1257 is interpreted.It is irrational, heretical and magisterial.Most Catholics have accepted this error unknowingly.
The SSPX must keep rejecting Vatican Council II according to Cushingism.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 
 
Will there be a schism over the Cushingism issue?
 
Now the error has been identified. Over time people will realize that what Feeney believed in was de fide and it was Cushing and Marchetti who were in heresy
 
 

This is irrationality and heresy being promoted by ' the Church' since 1949.The post 1949 Magisterium contradicts the pre-1949 Magisterium

The Church teaches such doctrine about invincible ignorance. Isn't the real question who are you to disagree with the Church?

Lionel:
The 'church' teaches the doctrine of invincible ignorance as being an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ONLY after Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani and Cardinal Richard Cushing made ' the great leap'.

Before 1949 magisterial documents only mentioned being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. They did not state that these cases are known to us in the present times to be exceptions to the dogma. Neither do they directly state that these cases are exceptions to the dogma.

The error has to be inferred.This was done by Jesuit theologians in Boston.
Mystici Corporis refers to being saved as such but does not state that these cases are explicit for us.
Similarly the Council of Trent refers to being saved with implicit desire. It does not state that these cases are known to us or that there is a contradiction of the traditional teaching.

The false premise was used by Marchetti-Cushing and then the false premise and inference was included in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14,LG 16 etc).Cardinal Ratzinger accepted the error and so CCC 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments, as if he would know of some exception when he was working on the Catechism.

This error has influenced Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Missio which does not affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma, because of allegedly known exceptions,
This is irrationality and heresy being promoted by ' the Church' since 1949.
The post 1949 Magisterium contradicts the pre-1949 Magisterium.
-Lionel Andrades
 

This is a superflous passage in Vatican Council II (LG 16)

Feeneyism was condemned by Pope Piux XII, *before* Vatican II. See the details at http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.html#a2.
Lionel:
Those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are in Heaven and we do not know their names.We cannot judge or know who is in Heaven, without the baptism of water.
Someone in Heaven cannot be an explicit exception to the dogmatic teching on salvation, on earth.
Someone invisible cannot be an exception today to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.

If someone does make this claim then he implies that we can see the dead who are in Heaven .He infers that these persons in Heaven known only to God, are explicit exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma.
If a pope, cardinal or bishop says this it is still irrational. It still is a factual error. It is a fact of life that we cannot see people in Heaven.
If any rational Catholic makes this claim he has to be corrected.
However this error is widespread in the Catholic Church and was condoned by the Holy Office in 1949 and then in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992).
The magisterium has made an objective , factual mistake.

_________________________


As usual, the INTERPRETATION of the dogma is the problem.
Lionel:
Specially when the magisterium uses an irrationality like being able to see or know people in Heaven in the present times, who are there without the baptism of water. Then with this irrationality it is inferred that there is salvation outside the Church.

Popes, cardinals and bishops have supported this irrational premise and inference.It was not part of the Deposit of the Faith before 1949.

___________________________


Essence is "However, this [Baptism of] desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."
Lionel:
The baptism of desire is ALWAYS implicit for us human beings and explicit only for God. It can never be physically visible for us.
It was never ever relevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.

So this is a superflous passage in Vatican Council II (LG 16).
Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuist assumed that the baptism of desire etc referrred to explicit - for -us, seen in the flesh, objectively verifiable cases.
-Lionel Andrades