Thursday, June 20, 2013

Without the Richard Cushing Error the SSPX, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Most Holy Family Monastery would be in agreement

The following quotation  is from the E-Exchanges of the Most Holy Family Monastery who also have been making the Richard Cushing Error. They assume that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, so they reject the baptism of desire.

It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who assumed that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was also the position of the Americanists at that time.

From the Most Holy Family Monastery website with comments

Justification
MHFM:
 Someone recently contacted us and indicated that Neal Webster might be interested in a debate on Justification. Apparently Webster gave that impression to someone. For those who don’t know, Webster claims to hold the position that no man is saved without water baptism (i.e., that there is no ‘baptism of desire’); but he believes that one can receive justification (the state of sanctifying grace) without water baptism by the desire for it.

Lionel:
We do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire and we do not know any one saved with or without justification!So how does it contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Unless of course one is making the Richard Cushing Error.

Simply put, he obstinately adheres to the position of the St. Benedict Center and Fr. Feeney on Justification: that one can be justified by desire, but not saved by desire. That position is COMPLETELY WRONG and contrary to an array of dogmatic arguments.

Lionel:
 There is no magisterial text or dogma which states that we can see the dead who are saved with the baptism of desire.If there was such a text it would be making the Richard Cushing Error.

In a debate with Webster, we would prove that position to be incompatible with infallible Catholic truth. We wrote to Webster and challenged him to a telephone debate on the matter. We received no response.

As we’ve pointed out before, it’s possible that someone who has not seen the dogmatic facts and arguments on this matter could be confused or erring in good faith for a certain period of time. However, to favor it in the face of the relevant facts and arguments is simply to deny Catholic teaching and be a heretic. Those who tenaciously cling to that false position (as Webster, the totally apostate followers of the St. Benedict Center and some others do) are generally inclined to do so because they are nothing more than worshippers of man, lost in the cult of Fr. Leonard Feeney, unwilling to admit that he was wrong on that point. If they had true faith and fidelity to Catholic teaching, they would easily recognize (when reviewing the arguments) that no one can be saved without water baptism precisely because no one can be justified without it...

Lionel:
 No one can be saved in the present times, in fact, defacto, without the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith.(AG 7).

In principle a person can be saved or justfied with the baptism of desire as a possibility known only to God and in a manner known only to God.The Council of Trent acknowledges implicit desire as a possibility for salvation.

It should also be noted that Webster, while giving the impression that he stands for the salvation dogma, doesn’t. Not very long ago he hosted the ‘baptism of desire’ and ‘invincible ignorance’ heretic Bishop Slupski, and he worked with him closely.

Lionel:
If the MHFM did not hold the Richard Cushing Error they would realize that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not known exceptions to the dogma on salvation.

Webster presented Slupski as someone of the true faith. When confronted about this matter, Webster complained that he didn’t know Slupski’s position. Of course, someone who cares about the faith in our day would ascertain Slupski’s position on that crucial matter before presenting him to the people as a Catholic. Slupski is not only a heretic, but he even condemns those who reject BOD...

Lionel:
If someone condemns those who reject the baptism of desire it is likely he is making the Richard Cushing Error and assumes that the baptism of desire is visible to us in the present times and so is a known exception to the dogma on salvation. However if the baptism of desire is implicit for him, invisible for him and known only to God, it should not be rejected. Since it is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.The baptism of desire is 'compatible' with the defined dogma on salvation.It was not mentioned by the Councils in the text of the dogma since it is irrelevant and not an exception.
-Lionel Andrades

 

Without the Richard Cushing Error Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the members of the Society of St.Pius X are in agreement with the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney

 

 
There is a comment on the Internet :
...some of their members (SSPX) have a radical almost Feenyite interpretation of EENS which is in complete contradiction to Lefebvre himself...
 
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre can be interpreted with or without the Richard Cushing Error. In this comment above it is obvious the Richard Cushing Error is being used.
 
Archbishop Lefebvre has stated:
"Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
With the Richard Cushing Error this would be interpreted as consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church, lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart and who dies in a state of grace and will go to Heaven - and who is personally known to us , and who is physically visible to us and so is a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla saus.He is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Without the Richard Cushing Error this would be interpreted as consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church and lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart and who dies in a state of grace and will go to Heaven and who is NOT personally known to us , and who is NOT physically visible to us and so is an UNKNOWN person and so is NOT an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla saus.He is NOT an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
It's the same Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre but interpreted with or without the Richard Cushing Error.
Without the Richard Cushing Error Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the members of the Society of St.Pius X are in agreement with the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in 2013.
-Lionel Andrades