Sunday, August 25, 2013

One has to be aware of the error of Cushingism when reading Vatican Council II



One has to be aware of the error of Cushingism when reading Vatican Council II.Even Traditionalists are making this mistake. They are interpreting the Council with a false premise.The  communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney like the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) are making this error. Even the sedevacantist Most Holy Family Monastery on their website reject the baptism of desire but their concept of the baptism of desire is explicit. They reject it since they think it would contradict the dogma.

They cannot still conceive of implicit baptism of desire being in accord with the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation by Fr.Leonard Feeney.

There are so many dead wood statements placed in Vatican Council II which imply we can see the dead now saved in Heaven ( or on earth!) or that we know who will be saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the word imperfect communion with the Church, good and holy things in other religions etc.

Those who read the Council with the eyes Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston, must finally say that Vatican Council II ' is a mystery'. ' so many things don't make sense', 'it is not rational', 'its contradictory', 'how can something be, for example A, and at the same time not be A', Vatican Council II contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction. It says yes and no at the same time.

If the Council is interpreted with Feeneyism i.e there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II, then there is no mystery. The Council is not contradictory, it has the hermeneutic of continuity, it is rational and does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.It makes sense. It is traditional. 

So when we read Vatican Council II we have to distinguish between in principle and de facto statements. Cushingism, assumes in principle statements, accepted as possibilities, are explicitly known and visible to us in the present times.

Those saved with the seeds of (AG 11) are a possibility, accepted in principle as being known to God. Cushingism assumes these cases are personally known and so are exceptions to all needing faith and baptisms for salvation (AG 11)

Ad Gentes 7 says all need to convert to Christ, Cushingism responds negatively.It says not all need to convert but only those who know Jesus Christ and the Church and who are not in invincible ignorance.

All need to enter the Church for salvation!- and only God will decide who knows and who does not know.Since only God can know!.These cases are accepted in principle as possibilities by us, Catholics, they are not known in reality.So Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct. There are no known exceptions. If there are no known exceptions for us then there are no unknown exceptions for us. If there are no known or unknown exceptions for us then there are no exceptions for us!Just possibilities.

In principle it is true only those who know and do not enter are on the way to Hell. In reality we cannot judge or know these cases.

This is the deadwood and confusion created by Cushingism which assumes the dead for us, who are now alive in Heaven and are saved, are visible to us ,; a known  reality and that we can judge and know these cases.

Traditionalists and liberals do not distinguish between Cushingism and Feeneyism when interpreting Vatican Council II. Even the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney do not make this distinction and use the Cushing model. 
So the Council comes across as a mystery, irrational and contradictory. The fault is not in the Council but in the irrational interpretation of the Council using Cushingism.
-Lionel Andrades