eucharistandmission

Thursday, April 25, 2024

The world turned Cushingite

In the 1940’s and 1950’s there was a tussle between Archbishop Richard Cushing and Fr. Leonard Feeney and this spread through the whole Church, which accepted Cushingism, officially.

The Americanists, earlier, at the time of the Baltimore Catechism, supported a theology which I call Cushingism i.e. invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc are visible exceptions for the traditional, interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So 'outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation', became the New Theology.

This was obviously irrational. But politically this was accepted by the popes from Pius XII.

The Holy Office (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) overlooked the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO). It projected invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being objective exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. Then the LOHO concluded, heretically, that not everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. It was as if they knew of some exceptions in particular cases in 1949.

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.- Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO) https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076

Richard Cushing was made a cardinal and Leonard Feeney was excommunicated.The St. Benedict Center was closed.

Cushingite Pope John XXIII maintained the excommunication, which was lifted by Cushingite Pope Paul VI after Vatican Council II.

Fr. Leonard Feeney, until his death, held on to his Feeneyism (invisible cases are always invisible, the baptism of desire refers to an invisible case. We do not know of any baptism of desire-case). He would recite the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be a member of the Catholic Church for eternal salvation. He was a Feeneyite.

Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally...- Athanasius Creed

But at Vatican Council II, the Cushingites Rahner and Ratzinger, and others prevailed. Even Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop’ Lefebvre were Cushingites.

Was Fr. Leonard Feeney a Cushingite on Vatican Council II? We don’t know.

The St. Benedict Centers though Feeneyite on EENS were Cushingite on Vatican Council II, like everybody else (including me).

Now over some 15 years, Vatican Council II is being interpreted with Feeneyism i.e. invisible and hypothetical cases are not objectively seen in the present times so they do not contradict Feeneyite EENS. They are not exceptions for the norm for salvation, ‘faith and baptism’ (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).

Cushingism was identified and exposed as modernist, heretical and schismatic and responsible for the new liberalism in the Catholic Church.

So the popes were now seen as no more magisterial, when they interpreted Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils, Catechisms etc) with Cushingism and not traditional Feeneyism.

A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path of the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who excercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Pietro et sub Pietro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself, who guides the Church.-Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies- Traditionis Custode.

Pope Francis is not Magisterial when he issues encyclicals and apostolic letters etc based upon Vatican Council II, Cushingite. Examples are Fiducia Supplicans, Traditionis Custode, Amoris Laetitia etc.

TRADITIONIS CUSTODE AND VATICAN COUNCIL II.

Pope Francis calls Vatican Council II interpreted with a fake premise, to create a false rupture with Tradition, the work of the Holy Spirit.

How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake and use a false premise to interpret LG 14 ( baptism of desire) and LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) for example ?

For me LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases always. They are always speculative and not real people saved outside the Church in the present times, 1965-2024.This is something obvious.

How can LG 14, LG 16, etc be exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors ? Yet this is how Pope Francis and the Masons interpret Vatican Council II. It is different from the rational way, I interpret the Council. I consider the interpretations of Vatican Council II with the rational premise as being Magisterial.It is not a rupture with the past Magisterium. Pope Francis cannot say the same.

With Traditional Mission and ecclesiocentrism the Catholic political parties can proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics and the non separation of Church and State, as a priority to save souls from Hell.

REDEMPTORIS MISSIO CUSHINGITE

But Pope Benedict XVI was a Cushingite.

Even Pope John Paul II’s Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus is Cushingite.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.

Pope Francis must no more interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism and issue Cushingite Papal Documents, which he considers Magisterial.

I affirm the Athanasius Creed.

I interpret the Nicene and Apostles Creed rationally.

I interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

I do not use the false premise to interpret the Catechisms of Trent, Baltimore, Pius X, John Paul II etc.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a break with Tradition for me.Since I choose the Rational Premise.I do not employ the false premise, inference and conclusion of cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn.

I interpret Vatican Council II rationally so there is a hermeneutic of continuity with Feeneyite extra eclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Deposit of Faith and the theology popes and saints of the past.

My interpretation of Church documents is Magisterial. Since it is rational, traditional and in harmony with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.There is no development of doctrine.

The interpretation of Magisterial documents with the false premise by the present two popes, is not Magisterial. It is political.

1. When you say " I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints" what do you mean?

Do you mean that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to teach that outside the Catholic Church there is salvation ?

Are you saying that there is known salvation outside the Church?

Are you saying that there are visible non Catholics saved without faith and the baptism of water?

So since there is known salvation ( irrational and a heresy), outside the Church, there is no communion with the saints on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed etc ? There is a rupture with the past ecclesiocentrism.

THIS IS HOW I INTERPRET THE APOSTLES CREED

2. For me the line, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints" is traditional. I interpret it rationally.

It means that the Holy Spirit guides the Church today to teach that outside the Church there is no known salvation.

It means for me that there are no physically visible non Catholics in 2022-2023 who are saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

So I am in communion with the saints - Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, Catherine of Siena, Maximillian Kolbe etc - on extra ecclesiam nulla salus( with no exceptions).

There is unity in the Catholic Church with the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed. For me the Creeds say all need to be Catholic for salvation.

There is a continuity with the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q), the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return)and Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI on the Proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King, in all political legislation etc.The Creeds are not a break with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.But for the present two popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) there is a rupture with the traditional interpretation.

TODAY THERE ARE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF THE NICENE CREED

This is now the controversial line.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins - Nicene Creed

This is how I interpret the Nicene Creed.

1. There is one baptism of water for the forgiveness of sins, it is the baptism of water. It is physically visible and repeatable. There are not three or more physically visible baptisms.

2.For the popes and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican, there is another version, an irrational version.There are visible cases for them of the baptism of desire etc. Otherwise they would be Feeneyite.They deny being Feeneyite.

For the cardinals, bishops and priests there are more than three baptisms for the forgiveness of sins.These are known baptisms, personally visible. They are the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance.They could include LG 8, UR 3, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council, for the liberals. They exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.Since they did not want to be Feeneyites.

Since they are 'visible' they are,allegedly, practical exceptions for 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is their False Inference. This was the bad reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It was referenced by the liberals, in Vatican Council II(Lumen Gentium 16).

MAGISTERIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CREEDS

When Pope Francis avoids the false premise, inference and conclusion, his interpretation of the Creeds will be Magisterial.It will be in harmony with the past Magisterium. There would be no hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

THE HOLY SPIRIT FOR ME SAYS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION

Since the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases in 1965-2022, for me,the line, 'I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church',means the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church that outside the Church there is no salvation.

But for Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandes it is different. For them, the Holy Spirit teaches that outside the Church there is salvation (visible cases of the baptism of desire etc)

For them BOD, BOB and I.I ( physically visible) are exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc.

So our understanding of the Apostles Creed is different.

For them there are exceptions for EENS and for me there are no exceptions.

Yet all of us recite the same Apostles Creed.

EXCEPTIONS MUST EXIST IN OUR REALITY

It is the exceptions which determine the interpretation of the Creeds.They are Cushingite or Feeneyite.

In a box of oranges an apple would be an exception since it is different but also because it exists in that box. If it was not in that box it would not be an exception.But the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not exist in our reality.They are not exceptions.

For example. in a hospital with many sick patients if one of them is healed then he is an exception since he is there in that ward.Where are the BOD, BOB and I.I cases being visible in the present times? Who can see someone on earth saved outside the Church?

For Cushingites invisible cases are visible.
For Feeneyites invisible cases are just invisible.

EENS is rejected when Catholics say that not all need to be Catholic for salvation.This is Cushingism.They reinterpret Vatican Council II, irrationally and then say that not all need to convert into the Church to go to Heaven.Not all - since there are exceptions.This was the heresy and schism of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.

With that same Irrational Premise of the 1949 CDF Letter, they have changed the Nicene and Apostles Creed. They did it with a fake premise.

They choose to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally.So the Council contradicts the past Catechisms, the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

This is a mortal sin of faith.Yet this is the Creed for the bishops.

According to Canon Law a Parish Priest has to be a Catholic and affirm the Creed. My interpretation of the Creed is traditional. The priests instead are not traditional.The Parish Priests teach the common irrational version of the Creeds at First Communion classes and Adult Catechesis (RCIA).This is now political innovation.

To interpret the Apostles and Nicene Creed with a false premise is a mortal sin - but about everyone is choosing the false version.