POPE FRANCIS WAS OBJECTIVELY IN SCHISM AND HERESY ON VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE LG 16 VISIBLE ERROR MADE ALSO BY POPE LEO AND THE CARDINALS AND BISHOPS TODAY
POPE FRANCIS WAS OBJECTIVELY IN SCHISM AND HERESY ON VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE LG 16 VISIBLE ERROR MADE ALSO BY POPE LEO AND THE CARDINALS AND BISHOPS TODAY
They can correct the error today and return to normal.They will then be Magisterial and Apostolic.
All this is mentioned so that they will interpret Vatican Council II etc rationally and so traditionally. There will be a continuity with the pre-1940 Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
They must correct the error in the Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano schism-traial which was based upon irrational Cushingism.
A pope who is publically oriented to Hell is not in communion with Jesus until he is sorry for his sins, asks for mercy and changes his life style. He cannot keep committing a public mortal sin for political reasons.
Mortal sins are specific. We cannot judge mortal sins according to the liberal moral theology based upon Vatican Council II (irrational). This interpretation of the Council cannot be Magisterial. We can judge mortal sins according to the old moral theology and ecclesiology which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally.
I repeat, we have to go back to the traditional interpretation of mortal sin, which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II (rational).
In this sense Pope Francis has committed the following mortal sins. These are some which come to mind off hand. They are as follows.
1). He interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. So his conclusion is heretical and schismatic.
2). Since he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally, he changes the interpretation of the Nicene Creed. Again this is heretical. It is schism with the Magisterium over the centuries. They did not interpret the Creeds with the irrational premise. They did not interpret the baptism of desire with the irrational premise.
3). Since he interprets Vatican Council II and the baptism of desire etc irrationally, he rejects the Athanasius Creed. This Creeds says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation. The pope is saying there are known exceptions in the present times. He implies that there are visible non Catholics saved outside the Church. This is first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II (Ad Teuendem Fidem).To contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Athanasius Creed there would have to be physically visible exceptions. It is only then that EENS etc become obsolete. Invisible cases cannot be exceptions for EENS in the present times (1949-2023).
4) Since he has interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally he has produced a new ecclesiology and so justifies changes in traditional morals too, as in the case of Amoris Laetitia etc.He has not excommunicated the German bishops who also justify their moral liberalism. They base it upon Vatican Council II irrational.
I interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as referring to invisible cases. For Pope Francis these are visible cases. If they were not visible cases he would be a Feeneyite on EENS.
So there is an objective difference between him and me. He is making an objective error and then he changes and rejects de fide teachings which are obligatory for all Catholics to believe in.
HIS PREMISE, INFERENCE AND CONCUSION ARE FALSE
His premise, inference and conclusion are false. We are both in different churches, in this sense, doctrinally and theologically. He must change. He must correct the public mistake. Don't expect me to say that invisible people are visible for me in 2023.
Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally, non magisterially. They were not apostolic but schismatic.
They had an obligation to only interpret Vatican Council II rationally, to be Magisterial. They cannot try traditionalists for schism, while they are morally dishonest.
Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez have an obligation to only interpret Vatican Council II rationally, to be Magisterial. They cannot choose a false premise (invisible people are visible-Cushingism) to make Vatican Council II a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed and then reject the doctrines and theology of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, before 1949. They cannot try traditionalists for schism, while they both interpret Vatican Council II dishonestly and non magisterially. Yet this is what they did
Before any schism trial is initiated the Catholic defendant must inform the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), Vatican that 1) he accepts Vatican Council II rational and not Vatican Council II, irrational. 2) He accepts and interprets rationally all Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils, and Catechisms etc). 3) He is in communion with all the popes over the centuries before 1949, who were Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney was Cushingite.
The Athanasius Creed, when it was issued, was Feeneyite i.e. there were no exceptions for the de fide teaching on all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation. There were no defacto exceptions, no visible-on-earth exceptions.
The DDF must be informed that it is the understanding of the defendant that the DDF is in heresy and schism since 1) the DDF accepts Vatican Council II, irrational only and not Vatican Council II rational i.e. with LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being hypothetical, physically invisible cases in 2024.So the DDF, like Pope Francis, is not in communion with the popes over the centuries, before 1949. There is no continuity. The DDF chooses the irrational premise, Cushingism, to interpret Magisterial Documents and the CDF before 1949 interpreted all Magisterial Documents only with the rational premise i.e. for example, the baptism of desire refers to a hypothetical case only. So the CDF before 1949 was Feeneyite and the DDF today is Cushingite.
Cushingism, produces heresy and schism, irrespective of who uses it. So there can be a liberal or traditionalist, Cushingite.
The DDF today is not the same, doctrinally and theologically, as the CDF before 1949. There is no continuity. The DDF lacks authority and competence. It cannot interpret Magisterial Documents irrationally and be Magisterial. So it does not represent the pre-1949 CDF. There is also a break with the teachings of the Apostles and the Church Fathers.
The canonical conditions required for the trial do not exist. The plaintiffs are Cushingites and so are the judges.
A cardinal in public heresy and schism is not authorized to conduct a trial on behalf of the DDF. The Secretaries and other members of the DDF do not meet the juridical conditions mentioned above.
The DDF has not denied these specific charges posted on social media over the years
It is Cushingism (invisible people are visible) which produces heresy and schism irrespective if the person is a liberal or traditionalist.Cushingism is like an epidemic in the Church. It has infected even cardinals Burke and Sarah.
Over the centuries the Church was Feeneyite (invisible people are invisible, the baptism of desire refers to an invisible case) as a philosophy. So there was only the traditional theology with no liberalism.
With Vatican Council II (rational), which produces Feeneyism there no more, is liberalism from the Council and so the traditionalist-liberal division is finished. The Council is traditionalist.
When the Council is traditionalist, the pope has to be traditionalist or he has to scrap the Council. Then there is no reason for bishops to go into sedevacantism and start new communities.
When there is no liberalism from Vatican Council II, the division in the Church ends.
Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, is interpreting Vatican Council II, the Catechism f the Catholic Church and the Creeds and Councils ( Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc) with irrational Cushingism. This is being dishonest. It would also be illegal. How can he be trusted?
Definition: fake premise, inference and conclusion and the rational premise, inference and conclusion.
The common fake premise is – invisible people are physically visible in 2026.
The common fake inference is – there are physically visible non Catholics in 2026 saved outside the Catholic Church without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
So the conclusion; the expected false conclusion is that Vatican Council II is a rupture with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. This is a New Theology in the Church. It says outside the Church there is known salvation.
All this reasoning I call Cushingism. This process of bad reasoning is common among the Cushingite popes, cardinals and bishops.
The rational premise is – invisible people are invisible in 2026. Lumen Gentium 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only.
The rational inference is – there are no physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in 2026 without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
The traditional and rational conclusion is that Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. There are no objective exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence (1441), the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q ) and the rest of Tradition. We are back to the old theology of the Roman Missal.
I call this reasoning Feeneyism.
Feeneyism and Cushingism, for me, refer to a way of thinking and not the two well known persons, Cardinal Richard Cushing and Fr. Leonard Feeney.
I interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with Feeneyism. Cardinal Richard Cushing and the popes from Pius XII interpreted them with Cushingism.
I interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism (invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 16 etc are invisible in 2024). Pope Paul VI and the popes who followed used Cushingism (invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 14 are physically visible in 1965-2026).
In the 1920s and 1930's the Catholic Church was Feeneyite. Today it is Cushingite.
Fr.Georges Laire, Judicial Vicar, in the diocese of Manchester in New Hampshire, USA, is still not clarifying the diocese's doctrinal position on Vatican Council II ( rational) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( rational) yet he maintains a Decree of Prohibitions against Brother Andre Marie micm, at the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, USA.
Bishop Peter Libasci, the bishop of Manchester, USA, interprets Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism. For Brother Andre Marie Vatican Council II and EENS are Feeneyite.
· Cushingism confuses what is invisible as being visible
· Feeneyism sees what is invisible as being only invisible in 2024.
Cardinal Sean O Malley interprets the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed with Cushingism and I choose Feeneyism. We are both in the same Novus Ordo main line Catholic Church. - Lionel Andrades