Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Richard Cushing Confusion at the Vatican


Archbishop Gerhard Muller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican uses a Deadwood Statement from Lumen Gentium 14 to say that the dogma on salvation has 'developed' from its traditional interpretation.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J the Secretary at the CDF also uses dead wood, mixing up in principle and defacto statements. He assumes Lumen Gentium 16 contradicts the traditional 'ecclesiocentric' interpretation of the dogma on salvation.As President of the International Theological Commission he produced one of the many Flotsam and Jetsam theologies based on an irrationality.The irrationality of being able to see the dead now in Heaven.They are supposedly known exceptions to traditional ecclesiolgy.


Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Vice President of Ecclesia Dei, Vatican also uses a deadwood statement in Lumen Genttium 8 , elements of sanctification and grace, to create confusion in the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

They have chosen in principle, hypothetical statements mentioned in Vatican Council II to reject the necessity of all people with no exception in the present times needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation (AG 7).This is all the Richard Cushing Confusion at the Vatican.The officials of the CDF have in public assumed the dead-saved in Heaven are visible to us (Richard Cushing Error).They have rejected Ad Gentes 7 which has the same message as the thrice defined dogma on exclusive salvation.


The Vatican has mixed up in principle statements in Vatican Council II with defacto (in fact) statements.

In the present Vatican -SSPX dead lock both groups can identify the Richard Cushing Error, the use of Deadwood Statements which result in ambiguity; the Richard Cushing Confusion.


They both could then agree on a traditional Vatican Council II, on the subject of other religions and ecumenism, which has only one rational interpretation.-Lionel Andrades


Flotsam and Jetsam theologies are based on the Richard Cushing Error and use Deadwood Statements to create a theology.

Richard Cushing Error is assuming that we can physically see the dead now saved in Heaven and then further assuming that these cases visible to us and known personally to us, are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation).

Richard Cushing Confusion is the general interpretation of Vatican Council II with the Richard Cushing Error.It is the use of an irrelevant statement, to the main text or passage in a Council text,which causes ambiguity. It is mixing up a possibility with a known reality.This leads to confusion in Council texts with dual statements.

Deadwood Statements are used in Vatican Council II to cause the Richard Cushing Confusion. They mix up what is implicit, dejure and theoretical. with a statement referring to something, which is explicit, de facto and practical.Usually hypotehetical statements are assumed to be known cases in the present times.

Cushing Prerogative refers to the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing using his power to suppress the truth and Fr.Leonard Feeney and also not issue a correction when the Boston secular newspapers implied there were known exceptions to the dogma on salvation. The Archbishop never lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney even though the priest was nover in heresy and was not required to recant his postion when the excommunication was finally lifted.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith officials use the false premise : here is the proof !
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/congregation-for-doctrine-of-faith.html#links  

Vatican does not clarify Pope Francis' remarks on atheists: negligent CDF still teaching factual error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/vatican-does-not-clarify-pope-francis.html#links

Fr.Francis Sullivan will not admit this. If he did he would have to change his entire theology and support a Vatican Council II which is traditional. He could lose his position at dissenting Boston College.

There is an interesting comment on Rorate Caeili :
 
bill bannonsaid...
Here is a link to the Jesuit periodical Theological Studies where the subsistit in versus est debate is recounted from the real change side ( Fr. Francis A Sullivan) but he gives you the OR reference in the beginning of the Jesuit opposing him, a Fr. Becker...who held that no change took place. It is microscopic as to the draft changes at the Council and the reasoning...

http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/67/67.2/67.2.7.pdf

 
Fr.Francis Sullivan S.J a liberal Emeritus Professor at Boston College has drawn upon the Richard Cushing Confusion in Vatican Council II to interpret the Council as a break with the past.
I have quite a few times pointed out to him that the Richard Cushing  Error of assuming the dead are visible to us is irrational. This is the error Fr.Sullivan has picked up in his writings including his book 'Salvation Outside the Church( Paulist Press) which can be read at Catholic universities and seminaries in Rome.It's irrational to assume that we can personally see the deceased on earth but Sullivan will not admit it.
This is common sense that if a person now dead does not physically exist on earth he cannot be considered an exception to every one needing to convert into the Church for salvation. If we knew a case of someone saved with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance, then it would be an exception to 'all 'needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation. (AG 7).
Fr.Francis Sullivan will not admit this. If he did he would have to change his entire theology and support a Vatican Council II which is traditional. He could lose his position at dissenting Boston College.
If he admits the Richard Cuishing Error  in public it would mean  all that he wrote on this subject was based on an objective error.He assumed the dead are visible.He did not notice the Richard Cushing  Error and based his liberal theology and interpretation of Vatican Council II on it.
 
Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II  is in agreement  with Lumen Gentium 8 on subsistit in. AG 7 agrees with Cardinal Becker's interpretation and writings on this subject.
If Fr.Sullivan's interpretation of  subsistit in is a break with the past , then it would also contradict AG 7. So where in Vatican Concil II is there text supporting Fr.Sullivan's position on subsistit in ?
We do not know any one saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3). In principle,  in theory, in faith we accept this as a possobility knowing it is known only to God. It is unknown to us.It is not a known reality.There is no particular case.
If we knew of a particular case saved in imperfect communion with the church or elements of salvation(LG 8) then we could accept Fr.Sullivan's interpretation of subsistit in.Then it would mean there is known salvation outside the Church.
-Lionel Andrades