Saturday, June 22, 2013

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was in perfect agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney without the Richard Cushing Error

So much of the SSPX writings on Vatican Council II are now obsolete with this new finding.
 
On traditonal Catholic forums ( Fisheaters, Cathinfo etc) they interpret Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,using the Richard Cushing Error.Here is one of two passages of Archbishop Lefebvre,with and without, the mistake of the Archbishop of Boston.
SSPX founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, "Against the Heresies",p.216
“Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.
It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
1.
With the Richard Cushing Error this would be interpreted as, 'certain distinctions must be made. Souls ( personally known to us, personally visible to us) can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.)...'
 Without the Richard Cushing Error this would be interpreted as 'certain distinctions must be made. Souls ( personally NOT known to us, personally NOT visible to us) ARE NOT saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.)...'

2.
 With the Richard Cushing Error this would be interpreted as, 'There may be souls( personally known to us, physically visible to us) who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.'

Without the Richard Cushing Error  'There (ARE NO) souls( personally  known to us, physically  visible to us) who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.'
3.
With the Richard Cushing Error this would be interpreted as, 'There are no souls(known to us) who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons (known to us ) make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.
Without the Richard Cushing Error this would be interpreted as, 'There are no souls( personally known to us, physically  visible to us who are saved) who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons (NOT known to us) make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.
There can be  two intepretations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
We can also interpret him using the in principle and defacto analysis.
1.
This would be interpreted as, 'certain distinctions must be made. Souls ( in principle) can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.)...'
This would be interpreted as 'certain distinctions must be made. Souls ( defacto, in fact, explicitly) ARE NOT  KNOWN WHO ARE saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.)...'

2.
 'There may be souls( in principle)  who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.'
'There (ARE NO) souls ( defacto, in reality  known to us)who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.'

3.
 'There may be  souls ( in principle) who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons  make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.
 'There may be souls ( defacto, known to us in real life there are NO souls)  who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons (defacto, known to us) make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.
So to use the Richard Cushing Error  would be denying or changing the dogmatic teaching.It would be rational. This is heresy also since it is saying there are defacto,known excptions to the thrice defined dogma on salvation.
Without the Richard Cushing Error Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre could have interpreted Vatican Council II as traditional on the issue of other religions and ecumenism.It's important to be aware of the Deadwood Statements in the Second Vatican Council II text. They are important only at the in principle, theoretical level.

Here is deadwood from the statement of Archbishop Lefebvre.
'There may be souls ( defacto, known to us in real life there are NO souls. In principle there may be souls) who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons (defacto, known to us) make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.
Using the defacto-dejure analysis , briefly mentioned in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus, one can classify what is theoretical or practical, invisible or visible, implicit or explicit , dejure or defacto.
When there is no mix up with what refers to things in principle and those in fact, in reality, there is no ambiguity in the Council text.
The Council is as traditional as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Society of St.Pius X and Fr.Leonard Feeney.-Lionel Andrades