Cushingism is irrational it assumes there are known cases of persons saved without Catholic Faith, in other words, it assumes there are known people in Heaven, visible cases in the present times of non Catholics saved without the baptism of water.Known cases? Visible? How is this possible ? And if they are not known and visible how can they be exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church? First there is a false premise : known cases in Heaven and then there is a false premise : they are explicit exceptions on earth to all needing to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
The error was there in the Baltimore Catechism in 1808 when it is suggested that the baptism of desire and blood are exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.Why was the baptism of desire placed in the baptism section? We cannot give any one the baptism of desire as we can baptise someone with water.Why was it placed in the Catechism ? Since it was speculated that these cases saved with the baptism of desire and blood were of known exceptions ,to all needing to be formal members of the Church. This was an error in thinking. An error in reasoning.It was a novelty.The popes did not check it.It would become official during the pontificate of Pius XII.
Today, where are these so called exceptions it should be asked ? Where are these cases in 2015 ? Where do they live and what are their names? Who saw these people in Heaven without the baptism of water?
In 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued who saw someone saved outside the Church? Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani? Cardinal Cushing ? Pope Pius XII ? What was the name of the person saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water in the 1940's and 50's ?
Is this humanly possible? Then why did they say there was salvation outside the Catholic Church?
Why did the Holy Office in 1949 assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Feeneyite version? Where was the precedent? Who knew of a particular case of someone saved without the baptism of water before 1940 ? Who had this special gift to see the dead who are now in Heaven and does the Church recognize this special gift and this person?
Who saw St.Emerentiana or St. Victor of St. XYZ in Heaven without the baptism of water? Is this a dogmatic teaching? Do we have to believe that St. Emerentians is in Heaven since someone had first hand knowledge that she went was not baptised before or after, she died?
So where are the exceptions today ? Those who do not need to be card carrying members of the Church for salvation? Who today can go to Heaven without having his name on the Parish Baptism Register ?
There is not a single person known, past or present who is in Heaven without the baptism of water and whose case was seen and known on earth. Not a single person.
Does any one know if the Good Thief was not baptised before he died ?
Yet it is assumed that these cases are known and these known cases are exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma.This is Cushingism.It is irrational. It is an objective mistake. It is an error in thinking since it assumes there are people in Heaven without the baptism of water who are visible and known on earth, to be exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is a mistake made by the popes. It is a mistake they overlooked or did not want to correct for political reasons.
Popes since the time of Pius XII have been using irrational, non traditional and heretical Cushingism as a theology.John Paul II, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis.
Traaditionalists also still use Cushingism to interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Letter of the Holy Office, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I use Feeneyism. Feeeneyism does not deny the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, it just does not assume that these cases are visible and known in the present times.Invisible cases are invisible.-Lionel Andrades