Sunday, July 23, 2017

Pope Francis supports today's Arian-like heresy which is Vatican Council II ( Cushingism)


Image result for Photo of Nicene Creed


Image result for Photo of Cushingite heresy

Image result for Photo of Cushingite heresyImage result for Photo of Cushingite heresy
Pope Francis supports today's Arian heresy which is Vatican Council II ( Cushingism).LG 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for the two popes and the Bologna School. Since it is an exception for them, they infer that it is a visible case saved outside the Church. It is a known person for them saved without 'faith and baptism' in the Catholic Church.This is the New Theology based on visible cases of LG 16 etc and it is accepted by the two popes.So Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with Tradition.
Image result for Photo of Arian heresyImage result for Photo of Cushingite heresy
If instead, Pope Francis and the Bologna School assume Lumen Gentium 16 refers to hypothetical cases and not real people known in 2017, then LG 16 does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which says all need to be members of the Church for salvation. LG 16 would refer to only a theoretical case.Then Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition. LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, LG 14, AG 11, AG 14, GS 22 are all hypothetical cases.They are not physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church. So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition.
Image result for Photo of Cushingite heresyImage result for Photo of Cushingite heresy
I call this interpretation, when LG 16 refers to invisible and not visible cases, as Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).

But for Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, as it was also for Pope John Paul II,  LG 16 is an exception to the dogma EENS.Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Cushing was right for all of them. So for LG 16 to be an exception, Pope Francis means that LG 16 refers to a known case.Someone personally known who is saved outside Church. If it was not a visible and known case it could not be an exception.This is his inference. I call this interpretation, Vatican Council II (Cushingite).

Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is the Arian heresy in the Catholic Church today.

The passages in Vatican Council II which mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance (AG 7, LG 14) are superfluous. They should not have been there in the Council text.
Image result for Photo of Fr.Stefano Visintin osb
They never were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Stefano Visintin osb, the new Rector of the Pontifical University of St.Anselm Rome.
Now Pope Francis with Cushingite Vatican Council II violates the Principle of Non Contradiction ( how can people in Heaven be visible exceptions on earth? ). Yet this is his heretical understanding of Vatican Council II.His conclusion is false. How can invisible for us Lumen Gentium 16 etc be considered visible and excluding the baptism of water ? Is this rational reasoning? No. Is this Catholic philosophy? No. Where is the person saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2017? There is no such person.So is the pope and Cardinal Donald Wuerl suggesting there is such a known person? Yes since they are Cushingites.
Holy_Spirit_as_Dove_(detail)
Pope Francis promotes the New Theology which is not the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.How can the New Theology suggest that there is salvation outside the Church? Who in the past could have seen someone saved outside the Church? Who could have said that they have seen a St.Emerentiana or a St.Victor saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water? No one. Physically it is not possibile for us humans and the Church does not recognise some one who had the ability to see such cases.So there is no known salvation outside the Church.
Image result for Photo of Cushingite heresy
The pope can speculate that there is a person outside the Church who is saved.But he would not know personally.He can believe and hope there is a person who is in Heaven who is a non Catholic and is a saint.But he would not know personally. This is something only God can know.So where is the theology and doctrines to support him without Cushingism.It is only with Cushingism that he can speculate that there is salvation outside the Church.
Image result for Photo of Cushingite heresy

Since he is a Cushingite and there is salvation outside the Church for him he can speculate that non Catholics are saints in Heaven.However he has rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The pope suggests that there is a saint or someone saved outside the Church while he violates the Principle of Non Contradiction in his rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).

Image result for Photo of Nicene CreedImage result for Photo of Nicene Creed

The two living popes also violate the Principle of Non Contradiction in the interpretation of the Nicene Creed. For them 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' is really 'I believe in three or more known baptisms, desire, blood, invincible ignorance etc for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.' Where are these known baptism of desire cases? Who can administer the baptism of desire? When is the baptism of desire visible practically like the baptism of water? It is not! This is all irrationality.
This is the Arian like heresy which is widespread in the Catholic Church and the error emerges from 'the top'.
I recite the Nicene Creed with a Feeneyite understanding other Catholics recite it with innovative Cushingite theology.
-Lionel Andrades

Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is the Arian heresy in the Catholic Church today.

 5  401
Comment on Gloria TV report
Libor
However this is not a permanent error. If we assume LG 16 refers to hypothetical cases and not real people known in 2017, then LG 16 does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which says all need to be members of the Church for salvation.
So if Bishop Schneider and the traditionalists accept LG 16 as referring to only a theoretical case, then Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition. LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, LG 14, AG 11, AG 14, GS 22 are all hypothetical cases.They are not visible examples of salvation outside the Church. So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition.
I call this interpretation, when LG 16 refers to invisible and not visible cases, as Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
For Bishop Schneider LG 16 refers to exceptions to the dogma EENS. So for LG 16 to be an exception, he means that LG 16 refers to a known case.Someone personally known who is saved outside Church. If it was not a visible and known case it could not be an exception.This is his inference. I call this interpretation, Vatican Council II (Cushingite).
Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is the Arian heresy in the Catholic Church today.
https://gloria.tv/news/

Austin Ivereigh,two popes all cardinals accept all Catholic magisterial documents like me but they interpret them with irrational Cushingism. This is the Arian heresy of today.



Connecticut Catholic Corner

This weeks Surfing the Internet from Connecticut Catholic Corner, Julie's blog

One of the first news stories I found this weekend was over on Aljazeera about Pope Francis, titled "Is Pope Francis a real reformer?". The interview was between Austen Ivereigh who believes Catholics who love the pre-Vatican II Church are delusional because that Church is dead and gone and isn't coming back...
No one who reads my blog will be surprised when I say Ivereigh makes me want to scream. We clearly do not see the Catholic Church nor Pope Francis at all in the same ways. 
It saddens me to see Ivereigh and those like him who think the Church needs to "move with the times" as host Mehdi Hasan states. Why? Look around you. Are the times we are living in so wonderful and wholesome and holy that the Church needs to embrace our modern society? Of course not! So why, oh why would anyone want to the Catholic Church to "move with the times" and change Her doctrines to fit our immorally bankrupt society? Ridiculous! 
This is precisely why I love the pre-Vatican II Church so much. They spoke clearly and in definite terms. No grey areas to give people false hope that one day...this or that will happen. It's misleading. Even if you love Pope Francis, you have to admit he is misleading. He does it all the time, he will state (on occasion) authentic Church teaching, and then come out with statements that are misleading like his "Who am I to judge?" comment, and when Francis said don't focus so much on abortion and gay marriage, and his letter to the Argentine Bishops to allow Holy Communion to people in mortal sin and his refusal to answer the dubia. All misleading people into thinking something has or is about to change in Catholic teaching.- Julie
http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.it/2017/07/this-weeks-surfing-internet.html


The interview was between Austen Ivereigh who believes Catholics who love the pre-Vatican II Church are delusional because that Church is dead and gone and isn't coming back...-Julie
No it hasn't gone.Says who ? Says Lionel.
It has not gone for Julie too at the blog Connecticut Catholic Corner. She affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) but based on pre -Vatican Council II literature.I too affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS but also with Vatican Council II and post Vatican Council II documents.
So what do I know that Julie does not?
It is this.
Understand this well.
There are two terms here.Feeneyism and Cushingism.
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra 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.Similarly mentioning BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) relative to the traditional teaching on salvation was superfluous.It was a mistake to mention it in Lumen Gentium 16 which Julie has quoted in her blog post on Outside the Church there is no salvation.

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.Austin Invereigh like most Catholkics today intepret Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So Lumen Gentium 16 being physically visible and personally known would be an exception to the dogma EENS, it would be a rupture with Tradition.1







Outside the Church there is no salvation...

I learned the Catholic Faith mostly from writings safeguarded and held by the Church since the beginning. Not through the new writings in "the spirit of Vatican II", but in the old writings, things written over the centuries. Beautiful writings I found in books more than a hundred years old published by the Holy Catholic Church. If you haven't been blessed to read such books I can't accurately describe the beauty in the honest, straight forward to the point writings the Church once gifted the Faithful with. Nowhere in these books are the opinions of men, but rather the pure holy teachings the Church held so dear for so long. These now haggard and musty old books are absolutely priceless to me.-Julie
http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.it/2017/07/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html

I learned the Catholic Faith mostly from writings safeguarded and held by the Church since the beginning.-Julie
Julie learnt the Catholic Faith from writings which were Feeneyite.They did not make the Cushingite mistake of mixing up invisible people as being visible.Cushingism came in a big way into the Church with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It was then introduced into Vatican Council II.
Here she has quoted a Feeneyite passage.

So who is in Hell? All those who died outside the Church? Depending on who you ask in the Church the answers you get will more than likely differ. 



Those holding to "old school" Catholicism might quote from one of those old books the Catholic Church used to publish, like "The Catholic Manual of the Holy Catholic Church", Catholic Art and Publication Office, Chicago, Ill, copyright 1906

Quote [this is in a Q&A form]:  
Q: Are there any other direct proofs from scripture to show that out of the Church of Christ there is no Salvation?  
A: Yes, these two will be mentioned here: First, Christ, speaking of those who were not yet joined in the communion of his Church, but whom he foreknew would make a good use of the graces he would give them for that purpose, says, "Other sheep I have who are not of this fold, them I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd," John x.16. : where he plainly declares, that all of those sheep, who are not yet of his fold, must be brought to it, as a necessary condition of their salvation.   Second, In consequence of this settled disposition of the divine providence, no sooner did the apostles begin to preach the gospel, than immediately "the Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved," Acts ii.47. which evidently show that all who are not added to the Church are out of the way of salvation. [end quote] 
That is the sort of books I read that led me to become Catholic. It's pure and perfectly clear - at least to me. 

http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.it/2017/07/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html

But then she comes to Lumen Gentium 16 and reads it with Cushingite lens. She assumes hypothetical cases  of being saved in invincible ignorance and a good concience are not hypothetical.They are explicit cases for her. This is the common wrong inference today.So there is confusion for her. 



Now reading some of what came out of Vatican II, this can get a bit hazy...
Lumen gentium 16 [1964]

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. [Source:http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html ]
 http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.it/2017/07/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html

She could re-read Lumen Gentium 16 knowing that hypothetical cases are simply hypothetical.She must not assume that they are objective cases in the present times.Then Lumen Gentium 16 becomes Feeneyite.It is not a rupture with the pre-Vatican Council II literature on outside the Church there is no salvation, like this one.





Let's look at one more "oldie". 



From my book "The Catholic Instructor: An Educational Library of Ready Reference with an Encyclopedia Dictionary", The Office of Catholic Publications, New York, copyright 1910, page 153. 

Quote (again in Q&A form):  
Q: May not persons be saved in any religion?   
A: No, certainly; St. Paul tell us, Heb. xi 6, "That without faith it is impossible to please God." And St. Peter assures us, Acts iv. 12, "That there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we may be saved, but the name of Jesus." And Christ himself tell us, Mark xvi, 16, "He that believeth not, shall be condemned." So that it is manifest from the holy Scripture, that true faith is necessary for salvation. Now true faith, in order to please God and save souls, must be entire, that is to say, we must believe without exception, all such articles as by God and His Church are proposed to be believed; and he that voluntarily and obstinately disbelieves any one of these articles, is no less void of true saving faith, than he that disbelieves them all. As St. James tells us, with regard to practical duties, chap. ii. 10, "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." Hence St. Paul, Gal. v. 20, reckons heresies, that is, false religions, amongst those works of the flesh, of which he pronounces, "that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." And God, himself, Isa. ix.12, tells His Church, "the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee, shall parish." [end quote]
 http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.it/2017/07/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html


Similarly she can interpret other magisterial documents with Feeneyism and at the same time  be aware of how every one uses Cushingism instead.

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.It is not an exception to Feeneyite 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. Since this is a visible case it is 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 ignorant of Jesus and the Catholic Church.Since it is a hypothetical and theoretical case it is not and never was an exception to Feneeyite EENS.
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 of the Gospel, he did not know about Jesus and the Church.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational. Any one who says invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire is an exception to Feeneyite EENS infers that these cases are objective for them to be exceptions.
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 used Cushingism. So they re-interpreted Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( invincible ignorance was considered visible by them), the Catechism of the Council of Trent etc.
Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.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 with Feeneyism.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.It does not infer that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to explicit and objective cases for them to be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
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 wrongly 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 this 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 with wrongly with Cushingism or correctly with 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.Theoretical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction.It suggests that since God is not limited to the Sacraments that we know such cases in real life. So it is mentioned.At the same time CCC 1257 states that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. So it seems Cushingite when it suggests all need to enter the Church with the baptism of water but some do not since there are known exceptions( God is not limited to the Sacraments).
 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 with Feeneyism since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, known people who are saved outside the Church 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 needing to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
However CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church since Cardinal Ratzinger assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved invincible ignorance referred to known and objective cases and so they were relevant to EENS Feeneyite. This was Cushingism.It was also an error.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.The reference to the desire for the baptism of water by a catechumen is a reference to a theoretical and hypothetical case.
Council of Trent : A Cushingite separates the baptism of water from the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water.
The reference to the desire for the baptism of water by a catehumen is a reference to an objectively and personally known case. This is false reasoning.________________________

So I accept all the magisterial documents of the Church and I interpret them with Feeneyism. Julie you can do the same. All Catholics must do the same.
Austin  Ivereigh,the two popes and all the cardinals accept all the magisterial documents of the Catholic Church but interpret them with irrational Cushingism.
This is the Arian heresy of today.
-Lionel Andrades




1.
https://gloria.tv/article/Lvfttbkjcx6G3jAPsvjdLqcVo