Fr.Hans Kung praised Fr.John Courtney Murray S.J : they were not aware of the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error in Vatican Council II

We read so much about Vatican Council II and how it is a break with Tradition but no one points out the exact cause. We know Lumen Gentium 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance) is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for most Catholics. But why is it a break with dogma I could ask ? And the response would be 'since we now know there are exceptions to the dogma. A non Catholic could be saved in invincible ignorance.'

Yes a non Catholic could be saved in invincible ignorance, it is a possibility accepted for centuries in the Catholic Church but how does it become an exception after Vatican Council II ? How does it contradict the dogma which says all need to enter the Church for salvation?

These cases are not known to us. We do not know any one saved in invincible ignorance who is an exception to the dogma. There are no names for 2014.

So the cause of the confusion is assuming Lumen Gentium 16 refers to cases which are visible for us instead of invisible for us. This is the fundamental error being made in
the interpretation of Vatican Council II. LG 16, LG 8, NA 2 are assumed to be explicit for us.

Once this error is corrected there is no ambiguity in Vatican Council II. I repeat NO AMBIGUITY.

This error can be traced to Cardinal Richard Cushing the former Archbishop of Boston. He assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known, explicit, visible in the flesh exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.He was supported by the Jesuit Superior in Boston and the Rector of Boston College. It is from here that the new doctrine has come into the Catholic Church.

 

On my blog I refer to it as the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error or the Richard Cushing Error.
The error is widespread in the Catholic Church including the dioceses of England.Possibly this error is also there in the Diocese of Lancaster since the official website does not mention that there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

 

How could there be exclusive salvation for the bishop if being saved in invincible ignorance refers to objective cases ? Since there are alleged exceptions there cannot be exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church according to the website of the Catholic Bishop's Conference of England and Wales.

 

Secondly, it is said that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for not accepting the baptism of desire as an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation. This is not true. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions the excommunication was for disobedience. The excommunication was lifted without him having to recant. He was disobedient. He did not go to Rome when called.He was not excommunicated for heresy.

However if it is said that he was excommunicated for heresy then it means that Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake. He assumed that the baptism of desire etc were known, visible exceptions to the dogma. This would be a factual error. Since the pope could not see the dead-saved who would be exceptions.It would mean he made a mistake.

 

So when interpreting Vatican Council II it is important not to go around in circles with vague views but to be aware of the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.It is something specific.

 

If you do a search of Fr.Leonard Feeney/extra ecclesiam nulla salus,on Google, you will find Wikipedia making the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.  Wikipedia assumes LG 16 is an exception to the dogma.

 

If you check an article on line by EWTN /Trinity Communications titled Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney authored by Fr.William Most the same error is made. It is assumed there are known exceptions to the dogma and so Fr.Leonard Feeney is faulted.

 

Even the Catholic encyclopedias have assumed that being saved with the baptism of desire is not implicit but explicit for us.

 

On quite a few Catholic websites it is said that Nostra Aetate has changed Church teaching on the Jews. They are  implying NA 2 refers to non Catholics saved and known in the present times who are exceptions to the  traditional teaching on other religions.Politically this is meaningfully but rationally it makes no sense.I do not know if there were 20 baptism of desire cases in 2013. I cannot name any one saved as such this year.

This error makes Vatican Council non traditional and heretical. With the use of a false premise ( the dead-saved are visible on earth) a pastoral Council is made dogmatic.We reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). This would also be a rejection of the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.

 

Fr.Hans Kung S.J in one of his early books has praised Fr. John Courtney Murray S.J who was active at Vatican Council II. Kung said Murray did what no pope could do. He did away with the dogma on the infallibility of the pope. Obviously Kung was interpreting LG 16 as being visible for us.This is the interpretation of Vatican Council II which is common even among readers of conservative Catholic blogs.

 -Lionel Andrades