I am avoiding the New Theology which assumes hypothetical cases are personally known in the present or past times, in particular, the hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf writes often about a needed response to Islamism but he is not willing to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Feeneyite), which indicates Muslims are on the path to Hell, since he assumes hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire are not hypothetical.For him they are living exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation from Hell.In other words there is known salvation among Muslims for him and so all do not need to enter the Church as Fr. Leonard Feeney and the Church Councils and saints taught.

He like the contemporary magisterium wrongly assumes that imaginary cases are known examples of salvation outside the Church, known exceptions to traditional EENS.

He supports  extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cushingism).Upon EENS ( Cushingism) is based the New Theology.He accepts Rahner's Anonymous Christian theory  since imaginary cases of Christians saved outside the Church, are real for him.The New Theology, the Anonymous Christian theory is the basis for the new ecumenism, which he supports. He even supports inter faith marriages and does not consider them adulterous, since there is known salvation for him outside the Church. He is a liberal on this point.

So he has no response when I say that I affirm EENS without Cushingism.

He believes that EENS( Cushingism) is the normal way to affirm EENS. Since this was part of his liberal Catholic religious formation as a priest.So for him Fr. Leonard Feeney held 'the hard line' position on EENS.

On the other hand if he says EENS( Cushingism) is irrational and EENS ( Feeneyite) is traditional his opponents will come sweeping down on him.So presently only with all this irrational and non traditional liberal theology and doctrine on salvation, he responds to the Muslim issue.

 

I instead would not assume hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS.So I affirm EENS ( Feeneyite). I do not infer or claim that there are explicit exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS. So I affirm Vatican Council II, Feeneyite.

I do not assume there are known cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance with or without the baptism of water. So I affirm the Nicene Creed, Feeneyite.

I interpret imaginary cases of the baptism of desire etc as being theoretical and hypothetical only.So I accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Feeneyite, only.

For me the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston has made an objective mistake and contradicts  the first part, which is Feeneyite. I accept the first part and reject the second part.This is the difference, theologically and doctrinally, between Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and me.

I am avoiding the New Theology  which assumes hypothetical cases are personally known in the present or past times, in particular, the hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.-Lionel Andrades

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf's understanding of the Church is Christocentric. It is the same as the liberals.He has no concept of a Church with an exclusivist ecclesiology. He has been religiously formed with the New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/frjohn-zuhlsdorfs-understanding-of.html


https://youtu.be/EvWEOpLLEso