THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN FEENEYITE BUT THE NEW MISSAL OF POPE PAUL VI IS CUSHINGITE
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN FEENEYITE BUT THE NEW MISSAL OF POPE PAUL VI IS CUSHINGITE : 91 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ( UPDATED)
1. What is the discovery?
The discovery is that Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and has a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Council of Florence 1442), the Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition. There is continuity with all the catechisms on outside the Church there is no salvation.
2. Could you be specific?
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. AG 7 is included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church No Salvation (846). Meanwhile LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible cases in 2025. They are always hypothetical.
So they are not objective examples of salvation in the present times. They are not explicit exceptions for AG 7 or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
This is the discovery. LG 16 refers to an invisible case. An invisible person cannot be an exception for Feeneyite EENS. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake. It projected invisible case of the baptism of desire etc as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS and the rest of Tradition.
So the conclusion is: in Heaven there are only Catholics (AG 7, CCC 845,846 etc).
The Church is the new people of God (Nostra Aetate 4).
3. So the Church still teaches outside the Church there is no salvation?
Yes. This is the magisterial teaching of Vatican Council II and the Church. This has been the apostolic teaching. So the post-Conciliar Church is in harmony with Tradition. There is a continuity and not rupture.
4. It is looking at Vatican Council II differently?
Yes. When the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are mentioned we must read this as always being a hypothetical case. So they are not exceptions for the orthodox passages, they accompany. They also do not contradict the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed. Similarly, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are not explicit. We must not confuse what is subjective as being objective.
5. Lumen Gentium 16-invisible is the discovery?
Yes. We cannot meet or see someone saved in invincible ignorance in 2025. So when LG 16 is not physically visible, it does not refer to a known person saved outside the Church in 1965-2025.So how can it be an exception for the dogma EENS?
This is the discovery.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) returns to Tradition and LG 16 is not an explicit exception for AG 7, EENS and an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius X.
6. So the Council is saying outside the Church there is no salvation?
Yes. Since Ad Gentes 7 is the norm for salvation and Lumen Gentium 8, 14, 16 etc are not exceptions for the norm. A possibility known only to God is not an objective exception for EENS or an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church in 2025.
7. What makes Vatican Council II irrational?
When the pope, cardinals and bishops interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the dogma EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology, they imply that LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to visible cases. They would have to be physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church, for them to be exceptions. An invisible person cannot be an exception for EENS in 2025.
But we know that there are no such visible cases. There are no exceptions for EENS.
8. The problem is one of observation?
Yes. What is invisible is confused as being visible. We cannot meet or see someone saved with the baptism of desire (LG 14).This is an error of observation. An empirical error. What is implicit is confused as being explicit. It is an error in philosophy which spills over into theology.
The false premise is: invisible people are visible in the present times. The false inference is: LG 16 refers to an invisible case of salvation saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance. The false conclusion is: there are known exceptions for the dogma EENS, which has become obsolete.
So the New Theology is: outside the Church there is salvation, there is known salvation. So all do not need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, is the bad conclusion. Tradition is made obsolete (Catechisms of Trent, Pius X, and Baltimore…)
9. So the Council interpreted rationally has no exceptions for EENS and the Roman Missal?
None. We return to the old ecclesiology with Ad Gentes 7 while LG 8, 14 and 16 are not explicit exceptions. The lex orandi is the same at every Mass, rite and liturgy because Vatican Council II is traditional.
10. What about the Novus Ordo Mass?
Presently at the Novus Ordo Mass they use the Missal of Pope Paul VI which is based upon Vatican Council II, irrational. They can choose to use the Roman Missal at the Novus Ordo Mass in future. So the homilies will also be different.
The New Ecumenism is based upon the Council having exceptions for EENS. The New Theology and Ecclesiology comes with there being ‘explicit exceptions’ for EENS.
11. So we return to the old theology- outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation- in the diocese and parishes?
Yes. We have to affirm the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally only (AG 7 is not contradicted by LG 16).
Morally, we are obligated to interpret Vatican Council II only rationally.
The Athanasius Creed and the Council of Florence 1442, canonically, can no more be rejected in the name of Vatican Council II irrational (LG 16 is an explicit example of salvation outside the Church and so an exception for EENS).
12. Sedevacantism based upon Vatican Council II is obsolete?
Yes. Since the Council can only be interpreted rationally and the conclusion is traditional.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano was correct when he rejected Vatican Council II irrational, which Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Fernandez accepted. But the Italian archbishop did not affirm Vatican Council II rational (LG 16 is implicit and not explicit).
We return to the old theology at every Holy Mass when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally. The Council determines the lex orandi.
13. Why was all this not known before?
I too was interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally until some 15 years back in Rome. I then had an insight. It was that LG 8, 14, 16 etc referred to invisible cases. So how could they be exceptions for the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) ? An exception must exist in our reality. An invisible person cannot be an exception. I realized then that the Council had a continuity with the dogma EENS. There no more was a rupture with Tradition. Loose-ends were tied up.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church did not contradict itself. Neither did it contradict the other catechisms. CCC 1257 (The Necessity of Baptism) did not contradict itself (God is not limited to the Sacraments). Neither was it contradicted by the old catechisms, when they mention the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I).
14. Who agrees with you?
Initially, it was John Martignoni, the American apologist who had a program on EWTN. He referred to the BOD as ‘a zero case’. Then there was the late Mons. Ignacio Barreiro. I knew him well. Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson confirmed it for me on his blog. BOD was not an exception for EENS. Fr. Stefano Visintin OSB, Rector of the University of St. Anselm, Rome had the same message for me when I met him at St. Anselm. Fr. Nevus Muchado op from Brazil I remember well.
Now everyone agrees with me. They say that we cannot meet or see a baptism of desire case. This is something obvious said Fr. Aldo Rossi, the former Prior of the Society of St. Pius X, at Albano, Italy.
15. Vocations will increase now, you believe?
Yes. Now the Church will draw young people who have a traditional faith, which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II. They do not have to choose between Vatican Council II and Tradition. It no more is either-or. There no more is a theological rupture with the founders of the religious communities, like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic Guzman, St. Teresa of Avila…
16. What about ‘the Boston Heresy Case’?
It really referred to the heresy of Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Richard Cushing, and the Jesuit Provincial in the USA, the Rector of Boston College and the Holy Office (CDF) in Rome. They confused physically invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma ENS. So the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was political. The excommunication was maintained throughout Vatican Council II. It was lifted after he was asked to recite the Creed. He chose the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be Catholic for salvation.
17. How can a pope teach heresy and be in schism?
The pope is infallible ex cathedra and when he is in harmony with Sacred Tradition. However in reality there have been political pressures and infiltration.
The popes from Pius XII to Leo have interpreted invisible cases of the BOD as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS.
The popes from Paul VI to Leo have also interpreted Vatican Council II with LG 14, 16 etc being visible exceptions for EENS. So the Council became a break with Tradition.
These are objective errors which can be verified. It has spread throughout the Church. This is schism with the pre-1949 Magisterium. There are now new interpretations of the Creeds, when BOD is mentioned. This is heresy. We no more have the original understanding of the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms.
18. Pope Leo and the College of Cardinals are in heresy and schism?
This is not just a personal opinion. I am following the text. The text of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, interpreted honestly. This is not a permanent state in which they are. It can be changed with an announcement. All they have to say is that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, Gs 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only. They are not explicit examples of salvation outside the Church in 2025.
19. So was the election of Pope Leo valid?
The College of Cardinals who interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally, with reference to the BOD, elected the pope, who makes the same mistake. They simply have to issue a clarification saying LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to physically invisible cases in 2025. Things will adjust themselves.
20. Quite a bold statement- the popes are in heresy and schism?
The proof is there in public. The popes do not affirm the Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS, the Catechism of Pope Pius X… Why? They are no more contradicted by invisible cases of the baptism of desire.
The popes also do not affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally like me. Their irrational interpretation creates schism with the Church Fathers and popes of the Middle Ages. Before 1949 the apostolic teaching in the Church was outside the Church there was no salvation. Now it is outside the Church there is salvation; there is known salvation. This is a new theology.
21. Are you saying the popes are not apostolic?
In general they are apostolic but not on this issue. Today we have two interpretations of the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms. One has to be wrong.
For them the Athanasius Creed has exceptions. For me it does not have known exceptions. There are no practical exceptions.
For them Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma EENS. For me it does not.
22. You are saying that the bishops who closed down the Latin Mass are in schism?
Yes. Ask them to prove me wrong. Ask them to affirm the Athanasius Creed and the dogma EENS. They cannot.
If they say Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma EENS they imply that LG 8, 14, 16 etc, refer to physically visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in the present times, without ‘faith and baptism’. But there are no such known cases in 2025. Invisible people cannot be exceptions for the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal which they do not support. So they do not even affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Neither do they affirm the old catechisms as I do.
23. So there cannot be a liberal-progressivist bishop anymore?
No. Since the Council is no more liberal. Morally, the bishop cannot confuse what is implicit (LG 16) as being explicit and then call it a development of doctrine or a ‘nuanced interpretation’. This is unethical.
24. What about the SSPX?
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct when he rejected Vatican Council II irrational. But he did not know about Vatican Council II rational.
The SSPX must continue to reject Vatican Council II irrational but accept Vatican Council II rational.
25. What about the FSCIRE, the Bologna School?
Alberto Melloni interprets Vatican Council II irrationally. The Council is a break with Tradition for him. So he implies that LG 8, 14, 16 etc, refer to physically visible cases, in the present times. In only this way can there be exceptions for the dogma EENS of the Church Councils, which he does not affirm.
From the secular point of view, how can he continue to use a false premise and false inference to produce a non traditional conclusion and not inform the people about it?
Also scholarships are given by the FSCIRE only to those students who use the false premise, inference and conclusion, in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
26. What about the SSPX’s concern about collegiality, ecumenism etc?
When the pope, cardinals and bishops interpret Vatican Council II rationally the conclusion is traditional. Collegiality would not be an issue.
There can only be an ecumenism of return to the Church with a traditional Vatican Council II.
Inter-religious dialogue would be a part of mission, in an ecclesiocentric Church and Vatican Council II.
27. You’re Anti Semitic?
I follow Jesus in the Bible. I follow the popes over the centuries as they interpreted the Bible. I follow the Magisterium of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Is all this Anti Semitic? I am not against any people or race. It is in charity for their soul that I mention all this.
28. So the Church and the State must not be separated?
No. Since Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric. It is important to be Catholic for salvation from Hell. Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. So it is important for Governments to be Catholic.
It is necessary to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation (Quas Primas).
29. What about the Church’s ‘social doctrine’?
There is no change. The Council is traditional. There cannot be innovation in faith and morals, any more, in the name of Vatican Council II.
30. The liberals will not like you?
I follow the text of Vatican Council II. These are not personal likes and dislikes.
31. The media?
They can no more criticize the SSPX and the Traditional Latin Mass groups, since the Council is aligned with the traditionalists and not Reuters, Associated Press and the Catholic News Agency.
32. Will there be a schism?
There could be a schism from the Left if Pope Leo and the cardinals interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so honestly. Some liberals will not accept this. The Synods have their foundation in Vatican Council II, interpreted irrationally and so dishonestly.
The pope and the cardinals are already in a schism on the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms. Pope Pius X and Pope Leo’s interpretation of the Creeds are not the same. St. Francis of Assisi held the strict interpretation of EENS but the understanding of Pope Leo and the College of Cardinals has visible exceptions.
33. The Italian government?
The Italian government must interpret Vatican Council II rationally. At schools and colleges they must interpret the Council only rationally. This is the honest thing to do.
34. The pope is magisterial and you do not follow the pope?
I accept Pope Leo as the pope. I follow the Magisterium of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in harmony with the Magisterium over the centuries. I follow all the Catechisms. The pope is expected to do the same. It is only then that he is magisterial. He is not magisterial when he interprets Vatican Council II dishonestly.
I follow the Magisterium of the 16th century, the Church Fathers and the Apostles. The pope is expected to do the same, to be magisterial on this issue.
35. Many people are going to Hell, Our Lady said at Fatima, Vatican Council II has the same message?
Yes. This is the message of Vatican Council II. Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. We know that billions of people die outside the Catholic Church, without Catholic faith and the baptism of water and so are lost eternally.
36. The implicit-explicit mistake is there in two papers of the International Theological Commission, Vatican?
Yes. They have quoted the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston which is referenced in Vatican Council II (LG 16).So they assume that there are explicit exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The EENS of the Church Councils which defined EENS has objective exceptions for the ITC. This is non traditional and not part of the deposit of the faith. . LOHO made a mistake when it projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions. This was not done before 1949. It is common sense that the baptism of desire is an invisible case. Similarly hypothetical cases of LG 14 and 16 are not objective exceptions for EENS or the Athanasius Creed. The Council was not ecclesiocentic for Cardinal Ratzinger and instead it was a rupture with Tradition.
Here is the ITC with the mistake.
10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22)…
66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821). The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII. The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69). In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870). But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).
-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions.
Christianity and the World Religions - …
58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”,[88] the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized. The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”.
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens. When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.- International Theological Commission, The Hope of Salvation for Infancts who die without being baptised’
The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die …
37. Dominus Iesus of Cardinal Ratzinger are Christocentric but not Ecclesiocentric?
Yes, since Vatican Council II was interpreted irrationally to produce exceptions for EENS. They followed the objective mistake in the 1949 LOHO.
So the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) has been placed in the Denzinger with invisible cases of the baptism of desire being visible exceptions for EENS, as it was known over the centuries.
38. Violating the Principle of Non Contradiction?
Yes the International Theological Commission papers and the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to Fr. Leonard Feeney violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.
How can the baptism of desire cases be on earth and in Heaven at the same time?
39. Placuit Deo Press Conference of Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj?
At the Placuit Deo Press Conference Cardinal Ladaria was asked by an Associated Press journalist if the Catholic Church still teaches that it has a superiority in salvation. The Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, projected Lumen Gentium 8 (subsists in) as an exception for EENS. It was as if he knew of non Catholics saved outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, where the true Church subsists and he is aware of it.
40. All the books on Vatican Council II are obsolete?
In general the books on Vatican Council II were written with the false premise (invisible people are visible), false inference (LG 16 refers to visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in the present times) and false, non traditional conclusion (Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS).
So the interpretation of Vatican Council II is irrational and the interpretation of EENS, the ‘nuanced version’ is false.
This can be seen in the books on Vatican Council II published by the Oxford University Press, Amazon, Angelus Press, Ignatius Press etc.
41. Books written on Vatican Council II by the traditionalists are also obsolete?
Yes. The books written by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Roberto dei Mattei, Christopher Ferrara, Michael Davies, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Romano Amerio, Ludwig Ott, Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. Anthony Cekada are obsolete. In the present times Peter Kwasniewski is a Cushingite on Vatican Council II. Also irrational on the Council are Alcuin Reid, Matthias Gaudron, Fr. Chad Ripperger and Aidan Nichols…
42. Non CatholicS and non Christians are outside the Catholic Church?
Yes. Those who die without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church are lost forever. This has been the traditional theology of the Church now supported by Ad Gentes 7 and not contradicted by Lumen Gentium or Nostra Aetate etc.
43. Apostolic Visitations are only apostolic with Vatican Council II rational?
Yes. The Vatican visitation of the diocese of Frejuf-Toulon, France was not apostolic. Since the visiting ecclesiastics interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. Similarly the visitation of the FSSP should have been based upon the Council interpreted only rationally and so traditionally.
44. The Catholic Identity Conference is not Catholic?
They are not Catholic in the sense, Michael Matt, interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. He does not seem to want to affirm Feeneyite EENS. It would mean that he made a mistake all these years and so did Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops and priests.
This conference is irrational on Vatican Council II. It is Cushingite. It is heretical and schismatic on the Creeds, Councils and old Catechisms. The same as the liberals and the progressivists.
45.Brian Burch will attend a political Mass of the Paulist Fathers in Rome?
Yes. The Holy Mass of the Paulist Fathers of the American community in Rome will be political on Vatican Council II.The Vatican Council II liturgy will be based upon the irrational interpretation of the Council.
The Paulists reject the dogma EENS, like the founder of their religious community. They project LG 8, 14, 16 etc as visible exceptions for EENS. So the Council is a break with Tradition.
The U.S Ambassador to the Holy See, Brian Burch, could announce that LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only. So they are not explicit exceptions for the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass.
He could also ask President Trump and Pope Leo to make this announcement.
The Paulist Fathers will then have to return to Tradition or go into public schism.
46. Pope Leo in an interview said the Latin Mass must follow ‘the Vatican II liturgy’?
The Vatican II liturgy is based upon the Council interpreted irrationally and so dishonestly. The Mass is Cushingite and not Feeneyite. It is ecumenically indifferent. It follows the New Missal which does not support the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Catechisms on outside the Church there is no salvation. It opposes the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal.
Vatican Council II rational instead, supports the Roman Missal which must be used at the Novus Ordo Mass and all liturgies. It is traditional in pre-and post Counciliar times.
There cannot be a liturgy which is a rupture with Vatican Council II and the traditional interpretation of the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms. The lex orandi cannot be changed with a fake premise, inference and conclusion. This is not Vatican Council II.
47. Dr. Peter Kwasniewski is a Cushingite at the Latin Mass ?
Peter Kwasniewski interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like the traditionalists in general. So it means he overlooks the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO). Also, since Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition for him it indicates he interprets the Catechism of Pope Pius X non traditionally i.e 29 Q contradicts 24 Q and 27 Q for him. So the Athanasius Creed would have exceptions too for him. It would be the same for the Nicene Creed when there is a reference to the baptism of desire. This is not the theology of the Latin Mass, in for example, the 16th century.
For me Vatican Council II has a continuity and not rupture with EENS etc, which Kwasniewski does not want to affirm otherwise. This is noticed in his writings.
When what is invisible is accepted as just being invisible on earth I call it Feeneyism. When what is invisible is confused as being visible, I call it Cushingism. Kwasniewski, like the SSPX bishops and priests is a Cushingite. Cushingism produces heresy and schism. It is irrational and dishonest.
48.Vocations for the SSPX and the sedevacantist communities have to accept schism?
They have to accept the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with exceptions. The same as the liberals. This is politically correct with the Left.
They cannot affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally, for then there would be no exceptions , for the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass.
49.Why go for a Mass in which the priest knowingly does not interpret Vatican Council Ii rationally ?
Why attend a liturgy when the Council is interpreted irrationally and not rationally?
It is Vatican Council II irrational which makes the salvation-theology and ecclesiology of the Syro Malabar rite, the Novus Ordo Mass and the Latin Mass a break with the past. When the Council is interpreted rationally and the 1949 LOHO error avoided, the Church returns to the old theology. There is a continuity with the old ecclesiology at every liturgy.
So when Pope Leo referred to ‘the Vatican II liturgy’ for the Traditional Latin Mass, at an interview recently, he was interpreting the Council irrationally and so dishonestly.
Why must we attend Cardinal Raymond Burke, Bishop Fellay or Pope Leo’s Holy Mass when they do not interpret Vatican Council II rationally ?
50.Bishops conferences must clarify their faith ?
Yes. Does Lumen Gentium 16 refer to an invisible or visible case in 1965-2025 for them?
The bishops conference in England could let us know if at Mass in English, Latin or the other rites , LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II must be interpreted as being invisible or visible cases this month in London.
Cardinal Tagle interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and so there are exceptions for the dogma EENS and so there is a new ecclesiology, new theology, new ecumenism and new evangelization for him. The exceptions for the dogma EENS produce all ‘the new stuff’.
This is approved by the Phillipine Bishops Conference ?
Vatican Council II rational is in harmony with the ecclesiology of the Austro Hungarian Catholic Empire. Is this acceptable for the Hungarian Bishops Conference today ?
If Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition for them then it is schism. It is a rejection of de fide teachings ( example the Creeds ), which Catholics are obligated to affirm. It is also a rejection of Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. It is also accepting the error, the heresy and schism of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ( Holy Office) in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop Boston. The Letter assumes invisible cases of the baptism of desire are visible exceptions for the dogma EENS and then concludes that it is not always necessary to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. The dogma EENS says it is necessary for all to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. The 1949 Letter by confusing what is implicit as being explicit, invisible as being visible and subjective as being objective, concludes that it is not always necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. This political document is approved by the bishops and a new theology has come into the Church. It says outside the Church there is salvation in known cases in the present times.
51. At the pontifical universities and seminaries they are teaching error on Vatican Council II. This is political. ?
Yes. They are Cushingites and not Feeneyites on Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. For them the passages from Vatican Council II marked in blue (on the graphs/icons) are contradicted by the passages marked in red. This is irrational. It is a common error in the Church. For me ‘the red is not an exception for the blue’
Their interpretation of Vatican Council II is approved by the Jewish Left, the ADL and the Vatican-Israel Bilateral Commission with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, for formal theological discussions.
The false interpretation of Vatican Council II is a Trojan horse to bring satanic values into the Catholic Church.
The pontifical universities and seminaries must be honest and announce that LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3 NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only. They cannot be objective exceptions for the dogma EENS (Council of Florence 1442 etc) in 2025.There are no physically visible cases of people saved with the baptism of desire this year in Rome.
52, There is nothing in Nostra Aetate to contradict Ad Gentes 7?
The Vatican’s Dicastery for Christian Unity and bilateral relations with the Jewish Left has its theology flawed. Vatican Council II, Ad Gents 7 tells us that all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation, from Hell. All. There is nothing in Nostra Aetate to contradict Ad Gentes 7. Neither is Unitatitis Redingtigratio 3 an explicit exception for AG 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)
This dicastery of the Vatican does not have relations with orthodox Jewish rabbis, who oppose abortion and homosexual unions. Neither are orthodox rabbis allowed to meet the pope. It is the same for conservative Protestant leaders.
Ecumenical programs with pro-life and anti-LGBT Christian leaders are not encouraged.
With Vatican Council II rational (LG 16 is invisible and does not contradict EENS) the Catholic Church returns to the traditional ecumenism of return to the Church. This contradicts the present theology of this dicastery which is schismatic.
53. Vatican Council II rational on Islamism?
With Vatican Council II rational we return to the traditional ecclesiocentric mission and evangelization. We proclaim that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation from Hell. Dialogue is a part of mission.
In the Vatican’s relations with Islamic countries it has to be clarified that Islam is not a part to salvation and its members are oriented to the Catholic Church, to avoid Hell (CDF, Notification, Fr. Jacques Dupuis sj, 2001. Pope John Paul II).
Vatican Council II rational is aligned with St. John Bosco’s concept of Islam and those of the popes in the Middle Ages. There are good things in other religions but the religions are not paths to salvation. The fullness of truth lies only in the Catholic Church, Jesus’ Mystical Body.
54. The new moral theology being taught at the Gregorian and other pontifical universities in Rome is obsolete ?
Yes it is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. It is now obsolete. Since now we can interpret the Council rationally. We have a choice. The conclusion is traditional.
So we return to the old moral theology of St. Alphonsus Liguori, which is in harmony with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally.
Suicide, adultery, fornication, divorce are mortal sins of morals. Disbelief, atheism, rejection of the Catholic Faith are mortal sins of faith, amongst other sins.
55. The Columbian Bishops Conference is presently in schism?
Yes, the Columbian Bishops Conference must must affirm LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, and GS 22 etc rationally and so also the Tradition held by Jose Galat and his TV channel. Vatican Council II interpreted rationally is also aligned with the faith and morals of Dr. Gloria Polo after she was struck with lightning in Bogota and her body was scorched and decomposed on earth. She was before the Judgment of Jesus Christ. She returned to life a second time with new body organs. She saw millions of people in Hell and observed that young people who had committed suicide were there.
This bishops’ conference like Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez did not affirm the dogma EENS and neither interpreted Vatican Council II rationally and honestly.
Cardinal Fernandez still does not affirm the dogma EENS, with invisible cases of the baptism of desire not being exceptions for EENS.
The Columbian bishops’ interpretation of Vatican Council II, like those in Peru and the rest of Latin America, is schismatic. It is the same in Spain, Mexico and other Spanish speaking countries.
56. Cardinal Gerhardt Muller must clarify Pope Benedict’s remarks at Regensburg?
In the fall out over pope Benedict’s address at Regensburg, Germany, Pope Benedict did not cite Ad Gentes 7 and neither did he interpret Vatican Council II rationally, with LG 16 not being an explicit exception for AG 7 and the dogma EENS.
Cardinal Muller, a former bishop of Regensburg and former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, has still to do the same.
He could cite AG 7 with LG 8, 14, 16 etc not being exceptions for AG 7 and the dogma EENS, with reference to Islam in Germany.
57. Pope Leo can no more give us Pope Francis and Cardinal Ladaria’s irrational version of Vatican Council II?
Pope Leo can no more give us Pope Francis and Cardinal Ladaria’s irrational version of Vatican Council II. It is schismatic and political. We now know that the Council can be interpreted rationally and the conclusion is traditional and ecclesiocentric. There is a continuity with the Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X. So we return to Pope Pius XI’s Quas Primas and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation in Catholic countries like Italy. Since outside the Church there is no salvation (AG 7, CCC 845,846) the Government must be Catholic in its ethos and aligned with traditional Catholic values.
58. EWTN for political-left reasons cannot affirm the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed interpreted rationally?
EWTN for political-left reasons cannot affirm the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed interpreted rationally i.e. with the baptism of desire not being an explicit exception for EENS. So EWTN apologists and correspondents, like Edward Pentin at the National Catholic Register and Eric Sammons at Crisis Magazine are not allowed to interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally. For then there would not be any ‘objective examples’ of salvation outside the Church and ‘explicit exceptions’ for the dogma EENS.
So they continue to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and accept the non traditional, liberal conclusion. They know this is dishonest. Their interpretation of Vatican Council II continues to be ideological like that of the Left.
Mother Angelica originally held the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and put the text on display prominently. I remember this. But then the U.S bishops in the name of Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally forced her to accept exceptions for EENS. This still is the policy of Raymond Arroyo, who is not allowed to interpret the Council and Catechism, rationally.
Arroyo and EWTN choose to be dishonest for political reasons.
59. It has been over a year and Andrea Torneilli and the Vatican Communications Department have no comment ?
It has been over a year and Andrea Torneilli and the Vatican Communications Department have no comment on whether Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible or visible case in 2025.It is the same with Phillip Pullela at Reuters and Nicole Winfield at the Associated Press.
Michael Sean Winters and John Allen jr, can no more support their liberalism with Vatican Council II interpreted dishonestly.
60. Vatican Council II indicates Mohammad is lost forever and Muslims in general, are going to the same place?
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. Mohammad died without Catholic faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Vatican Council II indicates that he is lost forever just as Dante saw him in inferno. So the Catholic Church’s teaching on Islamism, before and after Vatican Council II, has not changed.
Jesus is the only Savior of the world, God wants all to be untied in the Catholic Church (CCC 845), the Catholic Church is like the only Ark of Noah that saves in the flood (CCC 845), outside the Church there is no salvation (CCC 846).
The Quran has insufficiencies, error and superstition (Dominus Iesus, Pope John Paul II).
Dante saw Mohammad in Hell for founding a new religion which was not the will of God. Mohammadans are oriented to Hell, the popes and saints have told us over the centuries, as does the Council and all the Catechisms.
61. Cushingism at the Mass of the Ages?
You can be a Cushingite or a Feeneyite at the Latin Mass. For the Cushingite the baptism of desire refers to a physically visible case and for the Feeneyite an invisible case in the present times.
When what is invisible is confused as being visible I call it Cushingism. When what is invisible is seen as just being invisible I call it Feeneyism.
So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) will have exceptions of the baptism of desire for a Cushingite. For a Feeneyite, EENS would have no visible exceptions.
Lumen Gentium 14 and 16 would be physically visible exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, for a Cushingite. This is heretical and schismatic. It is a break with the pre-1949 Magisterium, which did not project exceptions.
So Dr. Taylor Marshall will say that he affirms the dogma EENS – but as a Cushingite. Since this is politically correct with the Left and the Vatican. Bishop Athanasius Schneider has said that there are no visible cases of the baptism of desire. But here there is a twist. He will not interpret Vatican Council II as a continuity with the dogma EENS and having no exceptions for EENS. Since then it will not be politically acceptable. So at the Latin Mass, Bishop Schneider and Taylor Marshall are, in public, Cushingites. I am a Feeneyite. All the bishops and Michael Matt at the Catholic Identity Conference are Cushingites. Public modernists. They are conservative on many subjects but on the baptism of desire (LG 14) they are with the liberals. So their interpretation the Nicene and Apostles Creed, is different from mine. Their theology at the Mass of the Ages is different from mine.
62. Do we attend the Latin Mass with the new or old theology?
The teachings of the Catholic Church do not change. They are the same before and after Vatican Council II – at least for me. The Synods are meaningless since they are based upon a Cushingite interpretation of Vatican Council II. The Council was interpreted irrationally and not rationally. So it is Christocentric without also being Ecclesiocentric.The mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston was not corrected by Pope Pius XII. It is from the LOHO that the New Theology comes. It is produced by confusing invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the EENS of the Church Councils, which defined EENS. So ‘exceptions’ are produced for Aquinas and Augustine’s interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation. Even the catechisms of Trent, Pius XII and Baltimore, are interpreted irrationally, dishonestly and in a confused way. In this manner the teachings of the Catholic Church are changed. With the ‘exceptions ‘ we get a New Theology ( outside the Church there is salvation), New Ecclesiology, New Ecumenism, New Evangelization, New Canon Law, New Missal etc.
But without ‘the exceptions’ we go back to the old theology and traditional ecumenism of return to the Church. There is a traditional, and ecclesiocentric mission and evangelization etc.
So we can attend the Latin Mass with the new or old theology.The New Theology is a break with the Athanasius Creed and so is heretical and schismatic.
63. Pope Leo and the Augustinians are Cushingites and not Feeneyites, like St. Augustine?
For many years I would go for daily, evening Holy Mass in Italian at the Augustinian Recollect church on Via Sistina, Rome. This is the Augustinian community of Pope Leo XIV. Nothing special. Good priests. But they were all protecting their position. They could not proclaim the Catholic faith openly. They were young priests studying at the Gregorian and other pontifical universities in Rome. But they could not discuss the Catholic faith on certain issues. Theology has become a political issue.
There had been a Vatican-Israel bilateral theological commission. It is now under the Dicastery for Christian Unity, Vatican. It was after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 that Pope Pius XII had to issue the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO). It changed Catholic salvation-theology. It says not everyone needs to be Catholic implying that invisible and unknown cases of the baptism of desire were visible and objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 1949.This was a new doctrine in the Church. It made the dogma EENS obsolete. The 1949 Letter was then referenced in Vatican Council II (LG 16), with no correction. Pope Paul VI accepted it and then interpreted Lumen Gentium 14 (the baptism of desire) as a rupture with the traditional, ‘strict interpretation’ of EENS.
Now in 2025 we know that if we do not confuse invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being physically visible in 2025, we return to the pre-1948 Catholic theology, before the emergence of the leftist-state of Israel. It is as if the 1949 LOHO did not happen and Pope Paul VI did not make a mistake in 1965.We return to St. Augustine’s concept of EENS.
So we can attend the Italian and Latin Mass with the same theology as St. Augustine.
Pope Leo and the Augustinians are Cushingite and not Feeneyite, even though St. Augustine was a Feeneyite on EENS. The baptism of desire referred to an invisible case for him. This was common sense.
So it does not mean that if you go for the Latin Mass that you are a traditionalist and if you go for Mass in Italian or English, you are a liberal.
The young Augustinians, at the church Sant Ildefonso e Tomasso Villanova (1670), Via Sistina, have studied Patristics and know the Church Fathers well, but they are Cushingites because of the irrational reasoning in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office which they have to accept. So their interpretation of Vatican Council II etc is political and not traditional and honest.
64. The European Bishops Conference no more has roots in Vatican Council II?
The discovery that Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric changes the Church in a big way as did the interpretation of Vatican Council II irrationally in 1965.The Church now returns to Tradition as in the sixties it moved towards a new liberalism.
So how can we justify the new doctrines of the Synods and those of Pope Francis? Since Vatican Council II is no more liberal.
The Synods are in public schism with the Church Fathers and the Apostles. The Synods can no more justify its new doctrines with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally i.e. Lumen Gentium 16 is allegedly a physically visible case in 2025, of someone saved outside the Church, without faith and baptism.
Cardinals Grech and Hollerich are now in waters up to their knees. The scenario has changed with the discovery of LG 8, 14, 16 etc, invisible.
Why should a Catholic accept LGBT-ideology? Since Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition; it is not a break with the dogma EENS and the ecclesiology of the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX.
The European Bishops Conference has to come down to earth. There is no ‘Vatican II liturgy’ which is liberal .I attend the Novus Ordo Mass as a Feeneyite and not Cushingite. The Council is exclusivist for me. The Council is traditional for me. It has ‘the hermeneutic of continuity’ with Tradition.
66.. What did Cardinal Burke and Raymond Arroyo mean by Latin Mass ideology? For me the Mass is Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
When Cardinal Raymond Burke and Raymond Arroyo recently criticized the Latin Mass ideology, they could have been precise and clear.
The Roman Missal of the Latin Mass supports the old ecclesiology, opposed to the new ecclesiology of Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally by the popes from Paul VI to Leo XIV. The 16th century Mass and the 16th century faith, for me, is there at Mass today in English or Italian. Since the Council has no exceptions for the dogma EENS, for me. So there is no liberal ideology, for me, at any liturgy.
But I am aware that when Cardinal Burke offers the Latin Mass, for example, at the Summorum Pontificum event this month, his ideology is Cushingite.It is schismatic. Since he projects practical exceptions for EENS. He interprets all the catechisms with a false reasoning, which produces liberalism, the approved ideology of the political-left.
67.. Can a traditionalist be in schism?
Cardinal Burke is in schism with the Apostles and Church Fathers. He interprets the Athanasius Creed with visible cases of the baptism of desire, being ‘exceptions’. So all do not need to be Catholic for salvation, for him (1949 LOHO).He interprets the dogma EENS as having ‘exceptions’ mentioned in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc). I avoid this mistake.
In the 16th century EENS did not have exceptions as they had exceptions for Pope Benedict and his hermeneutic of discontinuity with Tradition. It is the same for Cardinal Burke.
So what- if he offers the Latin Mass? He is in public schism on the Athanasius Creed and the dogma EENS and does not deny it. He does not say that he affirms the dogma EENS with no exceptions…
I have said this before. He offers a politically correct, Holy Mass.
68. What do the books of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Bruno Forte and Cardinal Semeraro have in common?
All three interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. For them LG 8, 14, 16 etc refer to physically visible examples of non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church, without the baptism of water and Catholic faith, in 1965-2025.For me these are invisible cases.
For them LG 8, 14, 16 etc are explicit exceptions for the dogma EENS. For me they are not. Invisible people cannot be exceptions for the dogma EENS.
So they are in a rupture with the Apostles and the Church Fathers, as were the popes from Pius XII to Francis and now Leo XIV, with alleged visible baptism of desire. I do not make this mistake and neither do the religious community, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, at the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA.
69. Threat of war over theology?
The daily IL Messaggero reported that there was a threat of war. This was during the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews- flap. In Cardinal T. Bertone’s letter to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, he only mentioned our faith in Jesus Christ. He did not say that Jesus was the only Saviour of the world for Catholics and that membership in the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation ( John 3:5, Mark. 16:16 etc, AG 7, CCC 845, 846 etc)
There is a bilateral Commission on theology. The Vatican cannot proclaim the traditional Catholic faith. There is a threat of war?
The theology at the Mass is controlled by the Vatican’s agreements with Israel and the Islamic countries.
So the pope, cardinals and bishops are not interpreting Vatican Council II rationally, for them they would be affirming the Catholic traditional dogma EENS. They would be following the Gospel.
So the Catholic missionary is on his own today, alone. There will be no help
from the Vatican.
70. We have a new way of reading Vatican Council II. It is a breakthrough for the conservatives, ‘the red is not an exception for the blue’
For Roberto dei Mattei, Correspondenza Romano, Radici Cristiane, Lepanto Foundation, Coetus, Voice of the Family, Una Voce, Fede e Cultura, Catholic Family News and Rorate Caeili ‘the red is an exception for the blue’?
This is irrational, non traditional, heretical and schismatic.For me ‘the red is not an exception for the blue’.We have a new way of reading Magisterial Documents, which really is the old way.
For the SSPX the red is still an exception for the blue. This is irrational. For me the red is not an exception for the blue.
So the books by Roberto dei Mattei, Paulo Pasqualucci, Cristina Siccardi and others sold at the SSPX chapel are also obsolete.They assume the red is an exception to the blue and so misinterpret the Council.
They were not aware of their Cushingite interpretation of the Council which causes the break with Tradition. They also did not interpret Vatican Council II, with Feeneyism, to affirm the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
There are no physical bodies of non Catholics saved without faith and baptism, in Newton's time and space. To assume there are such cases and then make a new theology based upon this irrationality, is not Catholic Tradition.Yet this was done by the traditionalists too after they accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
This is the new theology of the traditionalists and liberals, the former reject the conclusion and the latter accept it. Neither of the two interpret the Council without the irrationality and accept the traditional conclusion.
We have a new discovery which is unknown to most people in the Catholic Church. The discovery is that ‘the red is not an exception for the blue’
Traditionalists do not have unity on the Catechisms: the SSPX interprets them with Cushingism and the St. Benedict Center with Feeneyism. For the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St.Benedict Center ,New Hamsphire, USA , 'the red is not an exception for the blue'. For the Society of St. Pius X, sedevacantists ( bishops Sanborn and Pivarunas and the MHFM) and the liberals ( cardinals Kasper, Fernandez etc) and Archbishop Cardlo Maria Vigano, 'the red is an exception for the blue'.
Common sense and Tradition tell us that 'the red is not an exception for the blue'.
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him...- Ad Gentes 7. Vatican Council II
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
________________
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
______________________________
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
Unitatis Redintigratio (Decree on Ecumenism), Vatican Council II
It follows that the separated Churches (23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.-Unitatis Redintigratio (Decree on Ecumenism), Vatican Council II
______________________
71. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church ‘the red is not an exception for the blue’?
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
__________________________
72. In Dominus Iesus and the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney, ‘the red is not an exception for the blue’?
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
DOMINUS IESUS IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH
16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).
50
Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.52
The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53— between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expressionsubsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”
-Dominus Iesus 16.
________________________________
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 DURING THE PONTIFICATE OF POPE PIUS XII
( This letter was an inter office correspondence between cardinals. However the liberals placed it in the Denzinger and it has been referenced in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It contains an objective error when it assumes invisible and unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible and known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Upon this Letter is based the New Theology.)
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church...
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ,
which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth...
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects,necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic
necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit,as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
_________________________
73.Correspondenza Romano and the web-blog Rorate Caeili will not interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism rationally?
No, since the Vatican and the Left may issue a Decree of Prohibitions and Precepts against them for affirming Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the EENS of the Council of Florence 1442 etc. They have used this harsh Decree against the St.Benedict Center in New Hampshire, USA.
So Roberto dei Mattei interprets the Athanasius Creed , the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed irrationally. It is the same with the web-blog Rorate Caeili and the sedevantists Bishops Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunas. All the SSPX groups and those of Bishop Williamson are 'prudent’ on doctrine.
The Creeds are interpreted irrationally by the participants of the Catholic Identity Conference, and so they are allowed by the Left to hold this event every year.
74. Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall are to continue to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally?
Yes. In this way they please the Left and the Vatican and Bishop Schneider is not laicized or excommunicated. So they will interpret the Athanasius , Nicene and Apostles Creeds dishonestly and as a break with the 16th Magisterium during the Latin Mass. It is the same with Dr. Joseph Shaw, Peter Kwasniewski, the Latin Mass Societies and Una Voce.
They choose to interpret Vatican Council II dishonestly like the bishops in Detroit, Austin, Fort Worth, USA and Latina, Italy
75.The 1949 LOHO confused ‘the red as an exception for the blue’: Now the whole Church follows the mistake. It is the new theology ?
For me ‘the red is not an exception for the blue’. The passage in red is ‘a zero case’. There is no connection between the hypothetical passages in red and the orthodox blue passages.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent only mentions ‘the desire thereof’. It does not say that it is an exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). But the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) goes a step further. It interprets the baptism of desire as a practical exception for the dogma EENS.
No one saw a St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water. Yes she is a saint. But no one can say that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water. No one knows a Good Thief (Dismas) in 2025.
The Americanists placed the baptism of desire alongside the baptism of water, in the Baltimore Catechism, as if there was a connection.
The Masons wanted to get rid of the Catholic dogma outside the Church there is no salvation (Council of Florence 1442 etc). So they implied that the baptism of desire referred to a visible case in the present times.
Here is the error in the 1949 LOHO, in red, which influenced the same mistake in Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7, also in red.
1949 LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE( LOHO) DURING THE PONTIFICATE OF POPE PIUS XII
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church...
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ,
which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth...
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects,necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic
necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit,as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him...- Ad Gentes 7. Vatican Council II
76. We need outreach programs based upon ecclesiocentric mission ?
Evangelisation is no more only Christocentic. It has to be Ecclesiocentric too. Membership in the Catholic Church, Jesus’ Mystical Body, is necessary for salvation.
So new books and material have to be produced showing how the Holy Office (CDF) made a mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. Also it has to be known that ‘the red passages' in Vatican Council II, are not an exception for the orthodox ‘blue passages’. So the Council does not have exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return to the Church) etc.
It means, when we meet a non Catholic we know that he or she is oriented to the fires of Hell without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. This is the pre and post Conciliar teaching of the Catholic Church. The norm for salvation is faith and the baptism of water and not the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
So there have to be mission programs like in pre -1949 times. Even street mission is needed which will be Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
When St. Francis Xavier went to the Portughese colony, Goa, which is now part of India, he knew all the natives were oriented to Hell without ‘faith and baptism’( Ad Gentes 7). When St. Thomas the Apostle was martyred in South India, he was a Feeneyite. The Apostles and the Church Fathers were Feeneyite.
At First Communion and Confirmation preparation classes for children and adults, they must be taught to read Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Councils and Catechisms) with ‘the red not being an exception for the blue’.
The Church’s ecclesiocentric doctrines must be presented at inter-faith meetings, at ecumenism programs and educational events.
77. What about the baptism of desire?
It is not an issue for me. It is always hypothetical. So it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). I do not have to choose between the baptism of desire or Feeneyite EENS. For those who interpret Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) as an exception for the strict interpretation of EENS, imply, that the baptism of desire refers to a visible case in the present times. An invisible person cannot be an exception for EENS.
On the CMRI website there is a long list of references to the baptism of desire. Bishop Mark Pivarunas confuses all those implicit cases as being explicit.
Even Bishop Donald Sanborn assumes invisible cases of the baptism of desire are visible exceptions for the dogma EENS of the Council of Florence 1442. So the Most Holy Trinity seminary of Sanborn is critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney. Fr.Anthony Cekada made the same mistake.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Holy Office) made an objective mistake in the 1949 Letter the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. The baptism of desire never was an exception for EENS, ‘the red is not an exception for the blue’. The CDF and Pope Pius XII projected what was not there as being there.
The baptism of desire is ‘a zero case’ said the apologist John Martignoni. It is not an exception for the dogma EENS wrote Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson former nuncio to Switzerland.
They were observing the obvious. Before 1949 this was common sense.
So now if we rationally interpret Lumen Gentium 14 etc in Vatican Council II as being invisible cases, then there are no exceptions for the dogma EENS, in Vatican Council II. Ad Gentes 7 is in harmony with the dogma EENS and LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not objective exceptions for AG 7 or EENS. The Council has a continuity with the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Pius IX. It is ecclesiocentric and no more liberal.
The 1949 Letter is heretical when it says not everyone needs to be a member of the Church for salvation. It is also schism, on EENS, with the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century.
Based upon the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II (LG 16 visible) we have the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the Synods, Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans etc
78. The founder of the Most Holy Family Monastery?
The founder of the Most Holy Family Monastery Joseph Natale,established the monastery in 1967 as a traditionalist Catholic, or sedevacantist community.
He made a mistake in Vatican Council II. He interpreted it irrationally. He also did not correct the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. He did not refer to the baptism of desire in the 1949 LOHO as being implicit, invisible and subjective. Neither did Peter and Michael Dimond mention this. Theologically they reject the baptism of desire as being an exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and cited the popes and saints .
For the popes since Pius XII the baptism of desire was wrongly interpreted as a visible case. Then it was wrongly inferred that it is an explicit exception for the dogma EENS, the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal, the Syllabus of Errors, the catechisms on outside the Church no salvation….
79. There have been objections to what you write?
It is important to note that these are not just my views. I am citing the teachings of the Catholic Church. I also interpret Vatican Council II and the Catholic Church rationally (LG 16 is visible).
We can now have traditional mission, ecclesiocentric mission, only when we interpret Church Documents (Creeds etc) rationally.This is a fact a reality. It is not just my opinion.Vatican Council II interpreted rationally makes this happen. We return to the old theology and ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
Also children can be taught the faith, in ‘spirit and truth’, at First Holy Communion and Confirmation classes, only when we interpret Magisterial Documents rationally. The Church returns to the past exclusivist ecclesiology for seminarians and vocations to the religious life, when Vatican Council II etc are interpreted only rationally.
80. The SSPX in Italy?
The SSPX at Albano, Italy, who have a chapel in Rome, still interpret Vatican Council II irrationally even after being informed all these years. They are waiting for a policy decision from Econe.
The SSPX interpretation of Vatican Council II at Albano, Rimini and Montalegne remains political and not Catholic.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies and the Hildebrands did not interpret LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, rationally.
Econe, the headquarters of the SSPX in Switzerland, has not pulled back the book, ‘Is Feneeyism Catholic?’ by Fr. Francois Laisney of the SSPX. It is published by the Angelus Press of the SSPX. In this book the baptism of desire is interpreted irrationally . There has been no denial or comment from the SSPX .
The SSPX also needs to clarify that it is Cushingism which is heresy and not Feeneyism.
81. Archbishop Augustine di Noia asked the Dominican Sisters to pray for the SSPX reconciliation?
Yes. He wanted the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally like him and then their situation would be regularized.
He interprets the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally and dishonestly.
The SSPX refused to accept the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II even after doctrinal talks during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI
82. Cardinal Fernandez is still the Prefect of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican?
Yes. Canonically he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and dishonestly. There is no public denial.
From the secular legal point of view, he uses a false premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council and produce a non traditional conclusion. The people do not know about this.
83. Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration?
The Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, 24 hours at the church Santa Anastasia in Rome, after many years, has been stopped. I don’t think there is 24 hour Eucharistic Adoration anywhere in Rome today. There is adoration at the churches during the day but at night Jesus is left alone in the tabernacle in the parishes.
The Gospel of John Chapter 6 tells us that the Eucharist is needed for salvation.
Pope Leo does not mention this. He does not even say that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation; membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation from Hell.
84. Teilhard de Chardin?
There is no scientific proof to support Teilhard de Chardin. There is no scientific proof to support re-incarnation.
So how could the Gregorian Pontifical University have a conference on Chardin?
Vatican Council II interpreted rationally is traditional and not liberal.
85. TV 2000, RAI TV?
They do not interview Catholics who affirm all Magisterial Documents (Creeds etc) and interpret them rationally. This is a political issue for them.The pope, cardinals and bishops whom they interview are Cushingite and not Feeneyite.
86. The laity in Arlington, Texas?
They have to use the Two Step Approach.
1. Inform the bishop that canonically he is not allowed to interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechism irrationally. Choose to interpret them rationally before them.
2. Inform him that the books on Vatican Council II in the diocese, in general, are based upon the Council interpreted irrationally and not rationally.
Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church when interpreted rationally is in harmony with Carmelite theologyand not the liberal theology of Cardinal Victor Fernandez. So canonically and legally the bishop must interpret Magisterial Documents only rationally and so ethically.
3.The Mass of Pope Paul VI is Cushingite. It is has it’s foundation in Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. This is unethical. The New Ecumenism comes only with Cushingism. The New Ecclesiology is Cushingite while the ecclesiology of the Church in the 16th cemtury was Feeneyite.
It has to be updated or replaced with the Roman Missal.
4. It also must be mentioned in the canonical petition that the 1983 Code of Canon Law is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. So the petition must be based upon the Code of Canon Law in 1917. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, is in harmony with Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally.
87. Latin Mass in Charlotte, USA?
The Latin Mass group must use the Two Steps (canonical and legal) mentioned here. How can there be a liberal, progressivist bishop when the Council is traditional and supports the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal?
88. Edward Schaefer and the Collegium Sanctorum Angelicum ?
When they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally (LG 16 is visible) then there are exceptions for the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Here is schism with the popes over the centuries. There is a break with the Church Fathers.
But when they interpret Vatican Council II rationally ( LG 14 is invisible in 2025) then Ad Gentes 7 is aligned with the dogma EENS. LG 16 is not an explicit exception for AG 7 or EENS. Vatican Council II has a continuity with the ecclesiology of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, St.Maximillian Kolbe as an editor of a publication…
Presently the popes, cardinals, bishops and even the traditionalists and sedevacantists interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and produce schism in the Church.
So when a liberal bishop closes down the Latin Mass irrationally nothing can be done when the Latin Mass groups and Una Voce interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and schismatically, like the bishops.
For example, Edward Schaefer, the president of the Collegium Sanctorum Angelicum, in Kansas City, USA interprets Vatican Council II irrationally. So he produce a rupture with the dogma EENS and schism with the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal and the popes over the centuries.
Even if they have the Latin Mass at the chapel they are not traditional but schismatic, part of the general schism in the Church; the official schism.
They are modernist and they recite an Oath against Modernism.
Schaefer writes for ETWN publications but is not Feeneyite on the Creeds.Edward Schaefer is modernist with Vatican Council II irrational. The Collegium Oath Against Modernism is meaningless.
88. The Thomas More College of Liberal Arts in New Hampshire ?
The St.Thomas More College of Liberal Arts is a private Catholic educational institution in New Hampshire, USA. The President was William Edmund Fahey.The current President of the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts is Dr. Christopher K. Howerton.
1.They interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. It is the same with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
2. The books recommended for the students have the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms interpreted irrationally. They follow the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. The 1949 Letter contradicts the salvation-theology of St. Augustine and St. Aquinas.
3. The President and faculty members read Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with a false premise and inference and the students do not know about this.
4. According to Canon Law, juridical persons must be Catholic and they must affirm de fide teachings of the Catholic Church. Here we have a rejection of Vatican Council II and the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms interpreted rationally. So new doctrines and a theology is produced which is not traditional and the philosophy is not Catholic. The Sophia Institute Press of the TMC has published a book What Went Wrong With Vatican Council II by Ralph Mcinerny, which does not interpret the Council rationally.They are associated with Crisis Magazine and EWTN which does not interpret the Council as being ecclesiocentric. Instead it is liberal for them and a break with Tradition.
5. For me Vatican Council II is Feeneyite ( invisible people are invisible) but for them it is Cushingite ( invisible people are visible. LG 16 refers to a known person in 2025). For me the Catechisms are Feeneyite but for them they are Cushingite as it was for Romano Guardini, whom they extol.
6. They are under the Bishop of Manchester in NH. Bishop Peter Libasci also interprets Vatican Council II dishonestly and politically. So there is a schism with the Church Fathers and the popes in the Middle Ages.
7. Their Rome Office would be approved by Cardinal Baldassare, the Vicar General at the Rome Vicariate. He also interprets the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms dishonestly. He uses the common false premise and inference to produce schism. It is the same with Cardinal M.Zuppi, the President of the Italian Bishops Conference. It is reported that in the Third Secret of Fatima Our Lady mentioned that there would be a general apostasy in the Church. Here we see the traditional interpretation of the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms are being rejected.
8. These are canonical and legal issues in New Hampshire, since the diocese of Manchester and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, do not allow the St. Benedict Center to call themselves Catholic and receive donations in the name of the Catholic Church.
Why must the SBC use a false premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II like the Bishop of Libasci and the President of TMC?
The SBC could demand at a secular court that other Catholics in NH be honest like them.
9. When the President and faculty of the TMC like the bishop, chancellor and judicial vicar in NH, cannot affirm the Creeds, traditionally and rationally, how can they canonically and legally call themselves Catholic?
10. The St. Benedict Center is also in New Hampshire and they interpret Vatican Council II rationally but the Congregation Maria Regina Immaculate, of Bishop Mark Pivarunas, a sedevacantist in NH, interprets Vatican Council II irrationally, like Bishop Peter Libasci. The TMC does the same as the sedevantists and the bishop who offers the Novus Ordo Mass. They have not aligned themselves doctrinally and theologically with the St. Benedict Center on Vatican Council II, rational.
For the St.Benedict Center the Athanasius Creed is the same as in the Middle Ages. It does not have any exceptions. For the bishop in NH, the sedevacantist CMRI and TMC, the Athanasius Creed has exceptions of the baptism of desire etc. This is schism.
89.Fr.Peter C. Chan and the USCCB?
The USCCB interpretation of Vatican Counci9l II does not have ‘the imprimatur’. It is irrational, heretical, schismatic and dishonest. We have an apostolic and original option.
The USCCB is schismatic on the Creeds. Their interpretation is different from mine.
They did not pull up Dr. Peter C. Chan for his schismatic and irrational interpretation of the Council and Catechism. Since it is the same as theirs.
For EWTN, Vatican Council II is not exclusivist and ecclesiocentric. This is overlooked by the U.S bishops.
The U.S bishops interpret all the catechisms irrationally and so liberally, as a break with the past. They are now closing down the Latin Mass. They are using the New Missal of Pope Paul VI, which is not aligned with Vatican Council II rational.
Legally how can the USCCB use an irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II, produce a liberal and non traditional conclusion, and then not tell the people?
Why did the Arlington Discalced Carmelites have to accept Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally as does Bishop Michael Olsen, the bishop of Fort Worth, supported by Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican?
The ex-Carmelites have a right to file a canonical brief pointing out that Bishop’ Olsen and Cardinal Fernandez do not interpret the Athanasius Creed etc rationally and in the original. It is the same with Cardinal Arthur Roche.
They could go to a secular court and point out that the bishop and the USCCB confuse what is invisible as being visible and consider this normal for human beings. LG 16 is not a visible case in 2025.
The USCCB reality is different from the average human being.
The U.S Doctrinal Committee was informed about its irrational and nontraditional and dishonest interpretation of Vatican Council II but they continue with it and do not comment.
The Collegium Sanctorum Angelicum in Kansas City and the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts in New Hampshire and the Cardinal Newman Society, interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and the students are not told about this. The USCCB cardinals and bishops do the same.
The USCCB accepts the 1949 Code of Canon Law which is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and not the 1917 Code of Canon Law which is in harmony with Vatican Council II, rational.
President Trump and Brian Burch, the U.S Ambassador to the Vatican, must not allow the USCCB to continue to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally to produce a liberal conclusion. This is political. They must inform Catholics about the deception.
Cardinal Sean O Malley interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and then says Jews do not need to convert. Bishop Robert Barron did the same before Ben Shapiro.
How can the USCCB call itself Catholic when it cannot affirm the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms rationally like the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire ?
90.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) brought heresy and schism into the Church with the 1949 LOHO)?
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) had brought heresy and schism into the Church with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) and Cardinal Fernandez and Pope Leo have accepted it along with the whole Church.Schism and apostasy have spread throughout the Church like an epidemic.Even traditionalists and conservatives follow it unknowingly. It is taught at the seminaries and the pontifical universities.
However the virus has been identified. So it can be eliminated in future.Rome comes back to the Faith, which even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX lost.
Archbishop Lefebvre accepted this traditional passage in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
We are obliged by the divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things contained in the Word of God, Scripture or Tradition, and proposed by the Church for our faith as divinely revealed, not only by solemn definition but also by her ordinary and universal magisterium (Denziger n. 1792).
Now, amongst those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to teach, there is also this infallible declaration which says that there is no salvation outside the Church.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Library : Letter from the Holy Office Concerning …
But then he also accepted this irrational and heretical passage.
…for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member
He accepted the heretical and schismatic conclusion.
However, it is not always necessary that this hope be explicit as in the case of catechumens. When one is in a state of invincible ignorance, God accepts an implicit desire, thus called because it is implicit in the soul's good disposition, whereby it desires to conform its will to the will of God.
So he then interprets Vatican Council II with the error of the 1949 LOHO. He confuses invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible and known in the present times, exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), which says everyone must be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. The Council of Florence 1442 on EENS did not mention any exceptions.
So today why must we accept a pope or cardinal who does not affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally? For them LG 14 is an objective exception for the dogma EENS. For them invisible cases of LG 16 are objective exceptions for the Athanasius Creed. The Syllabus of Errors is made obsolete. Vatican Council II contradicts Tradition for them but not for me.
I appreciate Roberto dei Mattei’s contribution for the Church, on such a wide dimension, but he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally as he does the 1949 LOHO-it is the same with the SSPX bishops.
So why should we accept the visitation of Bishop Dominique Rey in Frejuf-Toulon, France? The ecclesiastics, who were visitors on behalf of the Vatican, interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally with the error of the 1949 LOHO. It was not apostolic. The rational interpretation would be apostolic.
Why did Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano have to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, with the error of the 1949 LOHO, as did Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez? He had to be irrational to avoid the schism charge?
The Arlington Discalced Carmelite Sisters were laicized because they did not accept the liberalism of the 1949 LOHO, as did Cardinal Fernandez and Bishop Michael Olsen.
Why must the Minim Fathers at the basilica of Sant Andrea delle Fratte in central Rome, not interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the ecclesiology ( understanding of Church on faith, morals, liturgy etc) of Alphonse Ratisbonne and the pope of his time?
The Thomas More College of Liberal Arts in New Hampshire USA and Rome and Christendom College, Virginia, USA and Rome, must affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the ecclesiology of St. Thomas More, which was that of the Church Fathers and the Apostles. They presently interpret the Council irrationally like EWTN.
Why must we follow the Archbishop of Paris in France, who does not convert to Tradition?
The Catholic Church lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney while he was still alive. He was asked to recite the Creed. He chose the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
Fr. Leonard Feeney accepted hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire. In the book The Bread of Life; he refers to the case of the catechumen. But the priest rejected explicit cases of the baptism of desire. This is common sense. The baptism of desire cannot be explicit for us human beings.
Wikipedia criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney for not accepting explicit baptism of desire as an objective example of salvation outside the Church and so a practical exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Council of Florence 1442 etc.
So you cannot say I am a Feeneyite on EENS who rejects the baptism of desire. I accept the baptism of desire. It can only be hypothetical.
You cannot say that I am a Feeneyite who rejects Vatican Council II. I accept Vatican Council II. But LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are hypothetical - in general for all people- and also for me.
So I accept Vatican Council II in harmony with the dogma EENS. Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) is aligned with the dogma EENS. It is inserted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church No Salvation. LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not practical exceptions for Ad Gentes 7 and neither for EENS. The Athanasius Creed has no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II (AG 7) is also ‘Feeneyite’ like EENS.
Wikipedia interprets the baptism of desire, Vatican Council II and EENS irrationally. It is Cushingite.
Wikipedia interprets LG 14, LG 16 etc with Cushingism. I choose Feeneyism.
So for Wikipedia the Council is a break with Tradition (EENS etc). For me there is a continuity.
For me the Catechism of the Catholic Church is in harmony with the catechisms of Trent, Pius X, and Baltimore etc.
So am I a Feeneyite?
Yes but not in the Cushingite way Wikipedia refers to Feeneyism.
For me, Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is Feeneyite, ‘the red is not an exception for the blue’. The orthodox ‘blue passages’ dominate in the Council-text.
The popes and saints before 1949 were Feeneyite, the magisterium and missionaries in the 16th century were Feeneyite. The three Church Councils which defined EENS were Feeneyite. They did not mention any explicit exceptions of the baptism of desire.
The Bible is Feeneyite (John 3:5, Mark 16:16 etc).
So Wikipedia must correct its entries on Vatican Council II, Feeneyism, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Fr. Leonard Feeney, St. Benedict Centers etc. EWTN must pull down its Cushingite report, Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney . - Lionel Andrades