I am affirming the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church without being a Vatican Council II-rejecting traditionalist or sedevacantist.Neither am I a liberal.

Holy Cannoli,

It is important to note that I am affirming the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church without being a Vatican Council II-rejecting traditionalist or sedevacantist.Neither am I a liberal.

I am affirming the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feneeyite) and also implicit for us and known- only- to- God baptism of desire (Feeneyite).

I am not affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cushingite-there are known exceptions to EENS).Nor am I affirming the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-these are explicit cases visible in the present times).

I am affirming Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite-LG 16 etc are not visible cases) and so the Council does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).So I do not have to reject Vatican Council II like the SSPX,the MHFM and other sedevacantists, who only know a Vatican Council II which is Cushingite.

Neither am I vaguely interpreting and accepting Vatican Council II like the FSSP or Michael Voris and Church Militant TV. There is no ambiguity for me in Vatican Council II's Cushingite passages, since they refer to theoretical and not objectively known cases.

Similarly I affirm the Nicene Creed's ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' .It refers to one known and visible baptism.It is the baptism of water.There are not three or more known baptisms for me.My interpretation of the Nicene Creed is Feeneyite.

However for the cardinals and bishops, when they make their Profession of Faith, with the Nicene Creed, they mean there is the baptism of water,desire,blood and being saved in invincible ignorance and they all referto known baptisms. So it is inferred that there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Feeneyite).

Similarly I interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Feeneyism as a theology and not Cushingism.Theoretical cases are simply theoretical and cannot be relevant to the traditional ecclesiology based on EENS (Feeneyite).

I accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is Feeneyite and reject the second part which is Cushingite and contradicts the first part.

So my beliefs as a Catrholoic are supported with traditional magisterial documents interpreted without irrational Cushingism as a theology.

Secondly I have quoted Archbishop Thomas E.Gullicson saying that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).Similarly John Martignoni the apologist says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance etc are not exceptions to EENS.Like wise the present Dean of Theology at the Pontifical University of St. Anselm, Rome says there are no known exceptions to traditional EENS in the present times.Other priests in Rome have agreed with them.

I mean this is obvious. We cannot meet or see someone in 2016 in Rome for example, who is saved without the baptism of water or who is going to be saved as such.-Lionel Andrades

 

https://gloria.tv/

 

 

Holy Cannoli
So now after some three posts over a week it is clear that are unable to answer or comment on these four points and neither can any one else you know, do the same.
In humility we can both agree on this?

EWTN and Catholic Answers make the following error.
1.Invisible cases are visible in the present times ( 1960-2016).
2.Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) refer to a visible case.
3.Vatican Council II contradicts the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since Lumen Gentium 16 etc are visible exceptions to the dogma.
4.The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has exceptions. They are the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, all without the baptism of water.