Edward Pentin could ask Cardinal Muller if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism?

Edward Pentin could ask Cardinal Muller if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism?

I make the distinction between Cushingism and Feeneyism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and so Edward Pentin could mention this to Cardinal Gerhard Muller in his next interview.This could be a way out in the present SSPX -Vatican doctrinal issue.

Does Cardinal Muller and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)  consider this a possibility? For me, Cushingism says there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).It says the baptism of desire and blood, which excludes the baptism of water, refers to objective cases, known to human beings.

Feeneyism says there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS , there are no objective cases of the baptism of desire or blood, with or without the baptism of water.So humanly speaking there are no physically visible exceptions to traditional EENS.

He could tell the CDF Prefect that the distinction between Cushingism and Feeneyism is made on the blog Eucharist and Mission (Lionel's blog)  and the blog owner(L.A) interprets Vatican Council II with Feeneyism as a philosophical reasoning and theology. He rejects Cushingism.Is he still a Catholic for the CDF ?

He also rejects the Cushingite reasoning used in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. So he accepts the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949  which is Feeneyite and the rejects the second part of the Letter(1949) which is Cushingite. 

He(Lionel) interprets Vatican Council II  and the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with Feeneyism i.e hypothetical cases cannot be objectively seen, to be objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The first part of the Letter(1949) supports Fr.Leonard Feeney.

He could mention that Lionel is aware of the passages in Vatican Council II ( LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc)  which are there because of the Cushingite interpretation of the Council Fathers.These passages should not have been placed in Vatican Council. They are there because of the error in the 1949 magisterial reasoning in Boston and Rome.1

For the blog  eucharistandmission hypothetical references can only be known to God if they exist in reality.So they are not relevant or exceptions, to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.

Cushingites assume that these hypothetical references are objective.They assume what is subjective for us is really objective.They confuse what is implicit as being explicit.The same confusion is there in Pope Francis' exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.

So can Cardinal Muller accept a Feeneyite interpretation of Vatican Council II , the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949?

The Feeneyite interpretation is rational and traditional while the Cushingite interpretation is irrational, non traditional and heretical.This can be plainly seen.

Edward Pentin has never spoken to Cardinal Muller about a Feeneyite and Cushingite  interpretation of magisterial documents.Neither has any one in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,over the last few years commented on this issue, even though there are thousands of posts on line on this topic.

 Pentin could say that Lionel  considers himself a Catholic, who accepts Vatican Council II and the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries, with the black and white concept, there being no known exceptions, no subjectivism.

 Pentin could also ask Bishop Bernard Fellay or an SSPX theologian  about this distinction. There is confusion among the SSPX priests. Since Archbishop Lefebvre was a Cushingite but the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 is  Feeneyite.-Lionel Andrades

1.

Pope Benedict wrongly assumed Robert Kennedy, Richard Cushing and the Vatican ( Holy Office'49) were objectively correct and Fr.Leonard Feeney made a mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/pope-benedict-assumed-robert-kennedy.html





_____________________________

The SSPX could interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II as I do and reject the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 since it is irrational and non traditional

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/the-sspx-could-interpret-dogma-extra.html

From my perspective it is Cardinal Muller and the SSPX who do not accept Vatican Council II(Feeneyite)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/from-my-perspective-it-is-cardinal.html

I accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also implicit for us baptism of desire: I affirm the centuries old dogma and do not deny hypothetical and invisible for us baptism of desire and blood.: The Letter made an objective mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/i-accept-dogma-extra-ecclesiam-nulla.html

SSPX contradicts the General Chapter Statement to reach an agreement with the Vatican

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/sspx-contradicts-general-chapter.html