Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Catholic theocracy- Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) essential



Vatican Council II supports a theocracy.Mission and proclamation is needed based on Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and EENS( Feeneyite).
For a Catholic theocracy - Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) is essential.
With Feeneyite Vatican Council II the Catholic Church affirms the Social Reign of Christ the King.
Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) is a foundation. Upon it is  based the traditional teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and state, also the old ecumenism.When Catholics accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney then Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition.There can only the old ecumenism. The new ecumenism is founded on there being known salvation outside the Church. Cushingite theology. The New Theology.
The Vatican and the Left presently affirm Cushingite theology with reference to Vatican Council II.Even the traditionalists and sedevacantists are using Cushingite theology. For them there is 'known salvation' outside the Church. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc are 'visible exceptions' to Feeneyite EENS.So non Catholics do not always need to convert for salvation.Since they do not need to convert they reason, why should there be the proclamation of the Social Reign of Jesus over all political legislation.Why should there be the non separation of Church and State, why should there be a Catholic theocracy ?
Since the traditionalists and sedevacantists use Cushingite theology they cannot support a theocracy theologically. Their buckets of water have holes.Why do you need a Catholic theocracy when people can allegedly be saved outside the Church? Invisible for us cases are visible, according to the traditionalists and sedevacantists and then they blame the popes and Vatican Council II.

The Catholic Church officially teaches extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14 Vatican Council II).
It is there in the magisterial documents though not supported by the present magisterium of ecclesiastics.

So all legislation needs to be centered on Jesus, and the Social Kingship of Jesus,there being no separation of Church and State. This is Vatican Council II Feeneyite.
Image result for Fr.Nicholas Gruner Photos
It is something Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari never knew about.
Chris Ferrara did not know about it when he wrote his book The Great Facade.
Image result for Ralph Martin  Photos
Ralph Martin did not know about it when he wrote any of his many books.
Now they know about it. They have not been informed by the Jesuits or La Civilita Cattolica or the Vatican Secretary of State.
We can work for a Catholic theocracy by interpreting all magisterial documents with rational and traditional Feeneyite theology.No one can say that this is not the teachings of the Catholic Church.
We are affirming all magisterial documents except that we are interpreting them with Feeneyism theology.
The present magisterium also affirms all magisterial documents but they interpret them with Cushingism.This is the difference.

The average Catholic must know that there is no rupture between Vatican Council and the strict interpretation of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.Then let him proclaim. Let his mission be based on this traditional doctrine.

According to the Catholic Church, post-Vatican Council II, all non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they enter the Catholic Church as members.

This must be understood by all Catholic political parties and Catholic religious groups.
635692819810521695

This is important for the Polish government. They must see the link between Vatican Council II(Feeneyite), extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Feeneyite) and a Catholic theocracy. Presently the Polish bishops are interpreting magisterial documents with the New Theology, Cushingite theology.Once they are on track it will be a welcome catechesis.2
-Lionel Andrades
1

JULY 16, 2017

Catholics needs to work for the separation of State and secularism and the non separation of Church and State even if opposed by Fr.Spadero s.j and the Vatican
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/catholics-needs-to-work-for-separation.html

2.


JUNE 15, 2017

An ethical and political issue for the Polish Governmenthttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/an-ethical-and-political-issue-polish.html

JUNE 14, 2017

Polish Ambassadors to Vatican and Italy ask the Vatican to correct the errors on Wikipedia
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/polish-ambassadors-to-vatican-and-italy_14.html
JUNE 13, 2017
Polish Ambassadors to Vatican and Italy need to be asked about Franciscans of the Immaculate and rules for religious communities
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/polish-ambassadors-to-vatican-and-italy.html
PAKISTANI CLERICS IN POLAND NOT CHARGED UNDER BLASPHEMY LAWS FOR UPHOLDING QURAN
https://gloria.tv/article/vxqCuhQPr26r1YKfKLjA7ySRP
Polish President Andrzej Duda must note that Cardinal Muller is teaching false doctrine which is politically motivated

POLAND IS CONSECRATED TO CHRIST THE KING BUT THE LAWS ARE SECULAR AND PRO-SATAN



DIGNITATIS HUMANE IS NOT AN ISSUE WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE) : ENGLISH BISHOPS ARE CUSHINGITES

POLISH PRESIDENT AND PRIME MINISTER MUST BE AWARE OF IDEOLOGUES OF NEW DOCTRINE
https://gloria.tv/article/8y6DHehJXX1L4v3jTw4zgThaN

https://gloria.tv/article/sRo1ZguveZoG21Tex9fZkg2Q3


Motion in Polish Parliament (Sejm) needed supporting the Tridentine Rite Mass https://gloria.tv/article/JwzueEVdQtHk2wYeTAMvvw73y 

European Parliament approves Traditional Latin Mass with new ideology https://gloria.tv/article/Zyav3jDaqeEE1cZ4gRL1JViB6  

Poland consecration to Christ the King : Collegiality in Vatican Council II is no more an issue when there is unity on correct doctrine https://gloria.tv/article/gtFcoNc4soAR1YVSpb1B7pYGv

POLISH BISHOPS AND PRESIDENT ARE ALSO PART OF 'THE FALSE CHURCH': INTERPRET THE CATECHISM(1995) DIFFERENTLY

OMMON MISTAKE EVEN THE BISHOPS AND PRESIDENT OF POLAND NEED TO ADDRESS
https://gloria.tv/article/Wy3YZ3eZwzjH6dLyeQ2GEpMrU

ISHOP SCHNEIDER DID NOT TELL THE POLISH PEOPLE THAT JOHN PAUL II MADE A THEOLOGICAL MISTAKE.VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE EXCLUSIVIST ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE PAST

On this old ecclesiology in harmony with Vatican Council II Poland, now consecrated to Christ the King, can proclaim His Social Reign over all political legislation

The Polish Church and government could interpret magisterial documents with Feeneyism there would be the ecclesiology of the past with no salvation outside the Church in 2017

NDRZEJ DUDA PRESIDENT OF POLAND DOES NOT NOTE THE SPLIT BETWEEN CHURCH DOCTRINE AND STATE IN POLAND BECAUSE OF CUSHINGISM

Catholic Church in Poland also uses the new theology of Pope Benedict, Cushingite theology: results in separation of Church and State https://gloria.tv/article/g6dn6Ko3XDKN4adP9VsUrpUb4

The non separation of Church and State theologically depends on Feeneyite Vatican Council II and EENS : 'false church' is blocking it 

https://gloria.tv/article/2sS1XEQauRo2AZz91v6EF9xWV

Two popes irrational and in heresy : Archbishop Gullickson, Fr.Visintin osb correct 

https://gloria.tv/article/metY6fnzBKhh1Ms3wskGZ6xdj

____________________________


When will Rorate Caeili learn?

When will Rorate Caeili learn?

from Rorate caeili

The myth of the Hermeneutic of Continuity



The following Rorate translation was first published by our Spanish-language partners "Adelante la Fe."






Interview of José María Permuy, conducted by Javier Navascués



Papolatry is a widespread phenomenon in the Catholic Church. Many Catholics take as infallible everything the Pope says, failing to realize that the successor of Peter is only infallible under very specific and limited conditions and when he speaks ex cathedra,which in practice occurs only rarely. Conservative groups, together with many members of the Church, cherish an especial veneration for the Second Vatican Council and its documents.
Lionel: Vatican Council II(Cushingite) is false and is supported by Pope Francis. Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is beyond the imagination of Rorate Caeili correspondents and readers as it was unknown to also Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Hildebrands, Robert dei Mattei....It is a concept beyond their imagination.Some like Fr.Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari died without discovering it.
_____________________________________



In effect, they elevate what was merely a pastoral council to the level of infallible dogma.
Lionel: This is no more an issue with Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).The two persons involved with this interview are Cushingites. Their concepts are Cushingites.Adfero who posted this has his mind closed.Only prayers can help.
_____________________________________
In accordance with Benedict XVI’s thesis of the hermeneutic of continuity, they would interpret the Second Vatican Council in the light of Tradition, without rupture or break, without the least error, approving of everything. This cannot be.
Lionel: It cannot be with Vatican Council II (Cushingite) but with Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) has the hermeneutic of continuity.The usual conditioning of the traditionalists prevent them from seeing it.Others are too afraid to speak the truth.
_____________________________________



José María Permuy, a professional in the field of education, a lecturer and author of many articles on the traditional teachings of the Church, explains on this occasion why it is not possible to speak of“hermeneutic of continuity” in its proper sense.
Lionel: For a Cushingite it is understandable.
______________________________________



Why cannot this concept be accepted?



Because it is a half-truth, well-intentioned as it may be. It is certain that there are conciliar texts that are susceptible to two or more interpretations. There, precisely, lies the problem. If these texts were clear, there would be no room for diverse interpretations. The fundamental problem, therefore, is not the subjective interpretations that are made, but the ambiguities and the objective contradictions made in some of the affirmations of the Second Vatican Council in comparison with the Magisterium of all time.
Lionel: He is referring to Vatican Council II(Cushingite).
________________________________



It is true that over the years the Popes have tried to clarify doctrinal issues, such as the primacy of the Pope or the necessity of Christ and His one true Church for salvation.
Lionel: They were trying to do it with Cushingite reasoning. They were handicapped.
_________________________________________



It is no less certain that on other occasions, the Popes, including Benedict XVI, have promoted, in theory or in practice, conciliar ideas contrary or alien to the Tradition of the Church, such as the separation of Church and State, ecumenical and interreligious prayer meetings, the recognition of the “martyrdom” of heretics and schismatics, the translation of the Mass into the vernacular and the progressive introduction and permission for Communion in the hand, extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, altar girls, etc… Francis is doing nothing but taking these erroneous ideas to their logical conclusions.
Lionel. Both are Cushingites. They interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and so the conclusion is non traditional.The traditionalists have no clue as to what is happening.
_______________________________________________



If the Popes themselves have fallen into heterodox interpretations in several important areas, it is because the conciliar documents themselves have allowed it. It is evident that had they adhered to such encyclicals as Mortalium animos, Mediator Dei, Quas primas, Vehementer nos, and Immortale Dei, the heterodox interpretations would have been impossible.
Lionel: They interpret also these documents with Cushingism theology.
____________________________________________________



What did the Second Vatican Council mean for the Church?



Because of the Council, the existence of a false “church” became more apparent—a parasite upon the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. Fortunately the Church is one and indivisible. Doctrine does not change. The unity of its government, under the authority of the Vicar of Christ, does not change, even if at times, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, in imitation of the Apostle St. Paul, the faithful have the right and even the duty to confront the Holy Father and to correct him if he takes decisions that put the integrity of the doctrine of the Faith or the salvation of souls at risk.
Lionel: How can the traditionalists confront him with they also use the New Theology?
__________________________________________________



Up until the Second Vatican Council, heretics either left the Church or were expelled from Her. The heterodox were admonished and chastised. Today they dwell in the Church’s very bosom. They are cardinals, bishops, priests, theologians. They are not leaving. They do not wish to leave. They wish to remain within and work to enshrine their errors in theory, or at least in practice. To make things worse, the Popes scarcely intervene. Sometimes, they not only fail to oppose these new and heterodox tendencies, but they themselves are their followers, or even their authors.
Lionel: So are the Rorate Caeili correspondents from my Feeneyite perspective.
__________________________________________________



The gates of hell shall not prevail. This is a promise of our Divine Saviour. But it does not mean that, as Paul VI warned, the smoke screen of Satan has not infiltrated the Church and turned it down a path of self-destruction. Will Satan and his destructive minions bring down the Church? No. Could they inflict serious damage upon Her? Certainly. Such is our current situation.



Is there a distinction to be made between parts of the conciliar documents that are erroneous, those that are ambiguous, and those that are indifferent?
Lionel. Please make the distinction between Vatican Council II Feeneyite and Cushingite.Take a little time to study the difference.
____________________________________________



In this regard, to be honest and unbiased, we must begin by recognizing that there are not only parts that are erroneous, ambiguous and indifferent; nearly the entirety of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council is fully orthodox, edifying, in conformity with the extraordinary Magisterium and the ordinary universal Magisterium of the Church, and therefore with Catholic Tradition.
Lionel: Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is heretical.It is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for example. Pope Benedict confirmed it in March 2016
_____________________________________________



However, as is well known, to be a heretic it suffices to deny one single truth of the Faith, even if one were to be a passionate defender of all the rest.
Lionel: Rorate Caeili interprets Vatican Council II with heresy and rejects an orthodox version. The FSSP offers Mass with the false version of Vatican Council II and EENS...
__________________________________________



Not every theological error is a heresy. Nonetheless it remains an error, and as such, dangerous and unacceptable. The Second Vatican Council contains affirmations that are indifferent, for instance sections that deal with methods of communication and other such things with no direct relation to faith and morals.



It contains ambiguous documents, such as Dignitatis humanae, which on the one hand claims to leave intact the traditional Catholic doctrine on the duty of society towards Christ and the true religion, but on the other hand maintains, in opposition to the Traditional Magisterium, that the State must respect, as a right, the freedom to promote false religions in the public sphere.



There are also errors, for example when it is affirmed, without further explanation and in contradiction with what was established at the Ecumenical Council of Florence, that heretics and schismatics can be martyrs if they shed their blood for confessing Christ.



And let us not forget the deliberate omissions, such as the absence of an explicit moral condemnation of Communism.
Lionel: The above passages were written in ignorance of the two versions of Vatican Council II one with the hermeneutic of continuity and the other with a rupture.
_______________________________________



This interview is not the time for an exhaustive enumeration of the ambiguities and errors of Vatican II. For a closer study of the theme, I recommend three works: Iota unum by Romano Amerio, Il Concilio Vaticano II. Un discorso da fareby Brunero Gherardini [translated into English as The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much-Needed Discussion] and theSi Si No No series on “The Errors of Vatican II.”
Lionel: Romano Amero di understand it was reported on the Catholicism.org website that the baptism of desire etc had to go.
This is at the heart of the issue. Invisible baptism of desire cannot be a visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. Invisible cases are not exceptions to Tradition. This is Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
_________________________________________



So therefore, not everything taught in this Council is part of Tradition…



Absolutely not. In matters such as religious liberty, relations between the Church and the political community, and the role of false religions with heretical and schismatic groups with regard to the salvation of mankind, to take only a few examples, its teachings are novel and incompatible with Tradition.
Lionel: Cushingite reasoning.
___________________________________________



Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to the errors of the Council and firm in defense of Tradition…



Archbishop Lefebvre certainly was, I do not know if he was the first, but certainly the most prominent shepherd of the Church who, from the very beginning until his death, perseveringly denounced the errors, contradictions, omissions and ambiguities of the Second Vatican Council.



Today, as we watch, stunned, while day after day Francis pushes the worst of the Second Vatican Council to its most extreme and nefarious consequences, the figure of Archbishop Lefebvre shines forth ever more brightly as a man of prophetic vision.


Lionel: More of the same.


Why do conservative groups blindly defend the Council?



It is not easy to find an explanation. In fact, there are many different motivations, and not all are caused by bad faith or bad will. In the case of some bishops, priests, and superiors of religious orders and congregations, it is quite possible that although they want to convince themselves that they are acting out of obedience, the fear of reprisals weighs on them: loss of their positions or even their livelihoods; the risk of an intervention by the Holy See into their communities…



Another motive is what many call papolatry. It is the belief that the Popes can never err when speaking of faith or morals. The First Vatican Council defined the infallibility of the Pope under certain conditions: [among others,] that he expressly wishes to define, as definitive, a truth regarding faith or morals.



This implies that, should these conditions not exist, the Popes are not necessarily aided by the Holy Ghost with the charism of infallibility; they can err, also in matters of faith and morals. If this were not so, the First Vatican Council would have declared that the Pope cannot err when he speaks of faith and morals, period, no further distinctions, nuances, clarifications or disquisitions needed.



What is more, the Popes, even without speaking or writing heresy, are not exempt from the possibility of sinning by favouring it, either by action or by omission, as demonstrated by the case of the anathematized Pope Honorius I.



Another reason that non-progressive Catholics defend the Second Vatican Council is that, like Benedict XVI, they believe the obscure and ambiguous passages in the Council texts can be reinterpreted in the light of Tradition.



By this they mean that whenever an obscure paragraph occurs, the light of traditional doctrine should be projected onto it and everything will become clear. They fail to recognize that the evil is that the paragraph, itself, should be obscure at all. Furthermore, not everyone has the knowledge of the traditional Magisterium of the Church to reinterpret these obscure passages correctly. The Second Vatican Council has become, de facto, almost the only magisterial text of reference for all Catholics. Where do we receive instruction about the teachings of Trent, or the Magisterium of the Popes prior to Vatican II?



For this reason, what is needed is not to project light onto obscure passages, but rather to change these passages so that in themselves, and for all those who read them, they are clear.



There are also those who take advantage of the fact that in the documents of Vatican II, there are obscure expressions or statements on some topics, side by side with others that are perfectly clear and in accordance with Tradition. They emphasize the latter, and gloss over the former. They do the same as the progressives do, but in the inverse.



Lionel : MORE OF THE SAME.
Javier Navascués has written for the Periodico de Aragón and Canal 44 of Zaragoza. He has also worked as an announcer and screenwriter for a number of Catholic media groups such as NSE, EWTN, Radio Maria, and others, most recently at Agnus Dei.

-Lionel Andrades
https://gloria.tv/article/xaDb1sbrrX442BhfjEmxeiek8



________________________

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It is practical. There obviously are  no known cases of the baptism of desire (BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2017.So there are no practical exceptions to EENS.Neither was BOD,BOB and I.I an exception to Feeneyite EENS in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued to the Archbishop of Boston. The cardinals made an objective mistake. Mentioning BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) along side the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church was superfluous.

Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning.It assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
TERMS EXPLAINED
Baptism of Desire (Feeneyite): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (Cushingite): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. This is inferred to be a visible case( mostly unknowingly) for the SSPX etc and so it is made relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance ( Feeneyite): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
Invincible Ignorance (Cushingite): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was Feeneyite.
Liberal theologians: They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They use Cushingism.
Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II withCushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II withFeeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston: It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It was Cushingite.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part,only .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.
Letter of the Holy Office ( Cushingite). It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It worngly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted withCushingism or Feeneyism.
Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) ; It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is a Cushingite interpretation.
Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.It is Feeneyite.
New Theology: It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It's basis is Cushingism.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite): .It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, since God is not limited to the Sacraments.
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needin to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvatioon.
Council of Trent A Feeneyite does not separate the baptism of water from the baptism of desire.The baptism of desire will be followed by the baptism of water.This is the dogmatic teaching of the dogma EENS and the Council of Trent on the baptism of water.
The Council of Trent does not state that the baptism of deire is explicit, physically visible and known in personal cases.
Council of Trent Cushingite separates the baptism of water from the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water.
For a Cushingite the Council of Trent says the baptism of water is visible and known in personal cases.This is the false inference.The text of the Council of Trent does not state this. It does not say that those who have received salvation in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are known in personal cases.This is an error of the liberal theologians.

________________________

Image result for Photos Letter of the Holy Office 1949


Image result for Photos Letter of the Holy Office 1949