Rorate Caeili and Bishop Schneider do not write that Pope Francis made a factual error, an objective mistake in his interpretation of Vatican Council II
Rorate Caeili and Bishop Schneider are not saying that Pope Francis has made a factual error, an objective mistake in his interpretation of Vatican Council II.Instead they are promoting the Council with the same error, in their ignorance. They are not pointing out how Pope Francis and Pope Benedict have violated the Principle of Non Contradiction. The error from Vatican Council II is not permanent and can be corrected. Instead every few months Rorate Caeili and Bishop Schneider or LifeSites and Bishop Schneider will interpret Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingite theology.They will not affirm Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) without the irrational premise.Nor will they affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite). Their reasoning is irrational. For them invisible for us baptism of desire would be a visible exception to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation.With this premise they create a non traditional conclusion and attribute it to Vatican Council II. Pope Benedict and Pope Francis do the same.
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise and violates the Principle of Non Contradiction. No one disputes this. The basic error is not theology but an empirical observation.It is seeing what is before our eyes,or, rather not seeing.
The pope interprets Vatican Council II with an irrational premise which comes from the Cushing-Feeney dispute I have mentioned in a previous blog post.There is an alternative interpretation.The pope does not choose it. It is a Vatican Council II without an irrational premise.I call it Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).It is not a break with Tradition. Without the irrational premise 'Rome comes back to the Faith'. The popes and Vatican Council II would be saying all non Catholics are on the path to Hell unless they become members of the Catholic Church.This is what the document says. It is not someones personal view or interpretation. Magisterial documents interpreted without the irrational premise and inspired by the Holy Spirit indicate all Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, atheists and Communists, Pentecostals, evangelicals, Protestants and Orthodox Christians are outside the Church.They are not Catholic.So they are on the way to the fires of Hell.This is the dogmatic teaching in the Catholic Church.It was based on John 3:5, Mark 16:16 etc. Ralph Martin, Robert Fastiggi, John Martignoni, Fr.Stefano Visintin osb, Fr.George Puthoor, Fr.Nevus Marcello o.p and priests in Rome whom I have contacted, indicate Pope Francis has violated the Principle of Non Contradiction in his interpretation of Vatican Council II. They all agree that somebody invisible cannot be visible at the same time. They would be supported by all priests most of them ironically would also be violating the Principle of Non Contradiction in their interpretation of the Council. Here is where they go wrong.Invisible baptism of desire cannot be visible in 2017.There cannot be people whom we personally know who are saved in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own.They would be known only to God if they existed. Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma EENS says John Martignoni. He is the Director of the Office of Evangelisation, Archdiocese of Birmingham, Alabama.But for Pope Francis LG 16, LG 14, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.They are not zero cases for the pope.Instead for the pope they are a rupture with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).So LG 16, LG 14, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are references to real people , allegedly known people, for them to be exceptions to the 'past ecclesiology'. Who/what is invisible is assumed by the pope to be visible.People who are saved in Heaven he assumes are also on earth.Then he makes them relevant to the dogma EENS. People who are not objectively seen he infers are like ghosts.This is a violation of Aristotle's Principle of Non Contradiction. How can someone who is not there before you be presumed to be standing in front of you ? And then based upon this wrong observation a new theology is created ? It says there is known salvation outside the Church?! The pope has made a factual mistake and his whole interpretation of Vatican Council II is skewered. It is a fact of life that people in Heaven are generally not observed on earth.It is a fact of life that if someone was saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water, it wouldnot be known to any one on earth.It is a fact of life that someone who died centuries back, may be even a saint,would not be visible and personally known to any one on earth in the present times , to be an exception to Feeneyite EENS. This is the view of the scientist-Benedictine priest who was a former Dean of Theology at Rome's Benedictine university.Fr.Stefano Visintin osb, the new Rector of the Pontifical University of St. Anselm in Rome, has said that there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS. This is something obvious.No quantum physics here. Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson also observes that there are no exceptions to EENS in the present times.There are no objective cases of people saved with the baptism of desire etc.Perhaps the popes will agree with him when this issue is brought to their attention. Presently it could all be only an oversight. So many Catholics, responsible people, are saying that there are no practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.So what I am writing here is not something original and known only to me.It is not a new theology or a new theory. I am not adding any thing new. Many Catholics know it. Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is not ' a development' to EENS( Feeneyite).It means Pope Francis has made an objective error which he needs to correct. Pope Francis and Cardinal Donald Wuerl suggest that Vatican Council II is the work of the Holy Spirit without differentiating between Vatican Council Feeneyite and Vatican Council II Cushingite.There is a difference between Vatican Council II without an irrational premise or one with the premise.There is Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic continuity or one with a rupture.One is de fide and traditional and the other is heretical and violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism, which is irrational and heretical. It cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
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.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.
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. 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. 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). Now the two 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. If the pope accepted Vatican Council II Feeneyite then young couples engaged to be married could ask their bishops and priests to interpret the Nicene Creed without the irrational premise, before they are married.Parish Councils and Marriage Tribunals will demand that a Protestant converts into the Catholic Church before he or she marries a Catholic.Since the non Catholic is outside the Church according to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14),the inter faith marriage will not be a Sacrament and a dispensation should not be given. Cardinal Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, would be asked to affirm Vatican Council II, Feeneyite instead of Cushingite.All religious at their Profession of Faith or Renewal of Vows would be consistent.They would be saying ' I believe in one baptism for the forgivness of sins' and mean only one known baptism and not three.Mission would be based on knowing that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell with no known exceptions, in the present times.There could only be an ecumenism of return, since there are no exceptions to the old ecclesiology of the Church based on outside the Church there is no salvation.Since there are only Catholics in Heaven and every one needs to enter the Church as a member to avoid Hell the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation would be a priority,for salvation,as would be the need for the non separation of Church and State.The Franciscans of the Immaculate, the Society of St. Pius X and the sedevacantist communities would only be asked to accept Vatican Council II Feeneyite which is traditional in its theology and doctrines.They could reject Vatican Council II Cushingite since it is heretical and not the work of the Holy Spirit.-Lionel Andrades
Ralph Martin, Robert Fastiggi, John Martignoni and Fr. Stefano Visintin osb indicate Pope Francis has violated the Principle of Non Contradiction in his interpretation of Vatican Council IIeucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/ralph-martin-ro…
Prof. Robert Fastiggi, Ralph Martin agree that invisible people cannot be visible at the same time : in agreement with Fr. Stefano Visintin's statement eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/prof-robert-fas…
Rational and traditional Catholic apologetics based on Feeneyism and not Cushingism
October 16, 2016 If the whole world violates the Principle of Non Contradiction then the whole world is wrong.If you and the other sedevacantists assume imaginary cases are physically visible in 2016 then you all are wrong eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/if-whole-world-…
October 14, 2016 The Principle of Non Contradiction cannot be violated irrespective of the importance of the people or their numbers
Card. Ratzinger interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrationality when a rational option was available .He then excommunicated Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops for not accepting this heretical version of the faith
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.Similarly mentioning BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) relative to the traditional teaching on salvation 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.
I interpret the following terms with Feeneyism and the two popes and the cardinals do so with Cushingism (so does the SSPX). I useFeeneyism and Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Muller, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Mark Pirvanus, Bishop Donald Sanborn and the sedevacantists Michael and Peter Dimond use Cushingism. For me the Baptism of Desire is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For me Invincible Ignorance is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For me Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite. For me Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For the Dimond Brothers extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Feeneyite but they reject the baptism of desire which isCushingite for them. For me the Nicene Creed is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite. For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Bostonis Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite. I avoid the New Theology, while they uses it. For me the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite. 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. Since this is a visible case or the SSPX 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 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. Council of Trent : A Cushingite separates the baptism of water from the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water. ________________________
