Sunday, September 29, 2013

Cushingism at conference suggests magisterium has made a mistake

If John Rao, John Vennari and the others would  use  Feeneyism ( no visible to us exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church) then the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is a polite condemnation of Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston. Since being saved with implicit desire and in invincible ignorance (mentioned in the Letter) is not an exception to 'the dogma', 'the infallible teaching'( also mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
With Feeneyism ( no visible-dead)  the Letter cites 'the dogma' whose text does not mention implicit desire etc. So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney who was excommunicated for disobedience and was not asked by the Church to recant his traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
 
John Rao, John Vennari and most of the SSPX members interpret the Letter of the Holy Office using Cushingism.
 
Also in the last paragraphs of the Letter of the Holy Office  where Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center are criticized , the SSPX assume it is for heresy and not disobedience. The text of the Letter mentions it was for  disobedience.
 
So the participants at the 2013 Catholic Identity Conference would really being saying, through Cushingism, that the Letter has made an objective error in assuming that there are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Pope Pius XII  was assuming we could see the dead-saved.This is the view of the SSPX and their traditionalist supporters.This is a factual mistake of Pope Pius XII according to them, since we canot see the dead on earth.In other words, they are saying that the  magisterium has made a mistake.
 
With Feeneyism we see that the magisterium has not made a mistake. The error is there in the traditionalist's interpretation of the Council with an irrationality; being able to see the dead who are known exceptions to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades

More party-line irrationality from Rao,Vennari and others: another politically correct conference
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/more-party-line-irrationality-from.html#links
 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/michael-voris-is-using-freemason.html#links
 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/more-of-same.html#links

 

More party-line irrationality from Rao,Vennari and others: another politically correct conference

James Vogel presented the standard errors at the 2013 Catholic Identity Conference. He was, as expected, supported by Dr.John Rao, who will not answer two questions which  I have asked him in personal correspondence.Neither will the SSPX Communications Office USA answer those two questions since they have to churn out the same message as Vogel, which has now become the political position of SSPX members.
 
None of them want to upset the cart and acknowledge that there can be two major interpretations of Vatican Council II.There can be two interpretations depending on a particular premise which is used. They are all using a false, irrational premise in the interpretation of the Council.
 
So the usual nonsense, was repeated, by John Rao, James Vogel, John Vennari,  and others as if they have to maintain the SSPX party-line.This error is also upheld by their Roman Forum colleague in Rome, Mons. Ignacio Barreiro. He will never dare say that Vatican  Council II does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.He offers the Traditional Latin Mass in  Rome! It seems like so many of them are looking after their career and comfortable  lifestyle and the truth of the Faith is not their priority.
 
If Vatican Council II no where contradicts the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , then the Council has to be traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities and churches.
 
Here are the two dreaded questions.(1) On the basis of these questions we can have two major interpretations of Vatican Council II, Cushingism and Feeneyism.
 
Presently the SSPX traditionalists and Cardinal Walter Kaspar and the liberal dissidents  are united in choosing the irrational and heretical Cushing interpretation, which was supported by the Freemasons and others in Boston.
 
The SSPX traditionalists can also be politically corrected with Cushingism.So they deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by using Cushingism  and  protect their property and way of life, from being targeted  under anti Semitism, racist or new laws created by the Left, to restrict the Catholic Church.
Possibly the next conference too will repeat the same  politically accepted position. -Lionel Andrades
1.