Even though there are so many reports on line which mention interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise or without it, with Cushingism or Feeneyism, as a rupture with Tradition or in harmony with Tradition Jimmy Akins has not dealt with this issue in his book The Drama of Salvation written in 2015.
I have also been sending him e-mails over the last few years on this subject and he has not replied a single one.
He continues to interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism and so creates a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
He ignores me when I tell him that I interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and so there is no rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.I do not use the false premise as he does. I am not a Cushingite.
He has no advice or correction for me.
In the video above he vaguely and in general says that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.He does not say directly that every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church and there are no known exceptions in the present times.So he avoids the traditional exclusivist ecclesiocentric interpretation known to the popes and saints over the centuries.
Instead he quotes Christological passages from the Bible.So with the New Ecumenism, based upon the New Theology and visible- for- us- baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc, he is saying that there is salvation in only Jesus Christ irrespective if you are a Protestant or Pentecostal.
For Jimmy Akins, Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy and not the Archbishop of Boston and Pope Pius XII.In other words, Cushingism is orthodoxy for him and Feeneyism is heresy.
At about the time 3:35 on the video he correctly says that the Church Fathers said that there was no salvation outside the Church.
Fine. He should have left it at that.
But he then says the early Christians( he means Catholics) recognised that many people are not in that situation, they may not have joined the Church but it may not have been through any fault of their own.
So the inference here is that these are known people saved outside the Church without being members of the Church. It is because they are known and not invisible and unknown they become exceptions to the dogma EENS for him. This is Cushingism.
He infers that possibilities of salvation are actual people known to be in Heaven without the baptism of water and someone on earth saw them there.This is Cushingism. It is irrational. How can a possibility in the past, for example, a St. Emerentiana, who is often cited,be an objective exception to the dogma EENS in 2018? This is faulty reasoning.Upon this irrationality Jimmy Akins infers that there is salvation outside the Church.Unknown cases are known people saved outside the Church and so the dogma EENS has become obsolete for him. It has to be interpreted with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.
Even if there was a person saved with a good conscience it still is a case which is physically invisible. Invisible people cannot be exceptions to EENS. It is an unknown case for us human beings. So how is this relevant to the Feeneyite interpretation of no salvation outside the Church? But Jimmy Akins mentions it since it refers to known people saved as such and so it is an exception to traditional EENS for him. This is Cushingism. He will then use this same irrational reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) as a rupture with EENS and the past ecclesiology.
Even if someone was saved because he lived according to reason or the Logos it would be an exception known only to God.It would be an invisible case for us humans. This is my Feeneyite way of looking at it.But Jimmy Akins has mentioned this with reference to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church as a known person saved outside the Church. This is innovative theology based upon an irrationality.
So at the time 2:58 on the video he affirms Feeneyism and Cushingism together. Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 do the same.
The first part of the Letter is Feeneyite and the second part is Cushingite and contradicts the first part.
Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14 ) says all need faith and baptism and also mentions the unknown catechuman with the desire for the baptism of water which he does not receive and is believed to be saved and the unknown case of the person in invincible ignorance who is saved outside the Church.
The Cushingite references in the Letter, Vatican Council II, Catechism(1994) are non traditional, irrational and heresy.It is repeated by Jimmy Akins.
The issue become serious when the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) for example like Jimmy Akins has to interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism to receive canonical status.
It is serious when all religious communities in the Catholic Church, are not allowed (like Jimmy Akins?) to interpet Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.
It is serious when EWTN and Catholic Answers even after being informed many times choose to interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism creating a schism with the past popes on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So today the Franciscans are theologically and doctrinally in a rupture with St. Francis of Assisi on no salvation outside the Church, it is the same with the Carmnelites and St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross who were Feeneyites.It is the same with the Dominicans and St. Dominic who held the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS etc.-Lionel Andrades