Friday, March 21, 2014

Gaudium et Specs 22: Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error

 All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way.(31) For, since Christ died for all men,(32) and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.-Gaudium et Specs 22. Quoted above in Catholic Answers Magazine
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means
 
Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error
All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way.
It is possible that a person with good will, will be saved in an unseen way.This would be known only to God.This case would be invisible for us.
This case is not visible for us. So it would not be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So when it assumed on the Catholic Answer Magazine above quoted that this is an exception to the traditional teaching which says all non Catholics are going to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church it means the invisible is being considered to be visible. This is the Cushing- Jesuit Factual Error.
It is a fact that we do not know any such case who is an exception. Neither does the passage above claim that it is a known exception. Yet dissenters will imply that this refers to an explicit case.

we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.-Gaudium et Specs 22.

Yes as a possibility but no as a defacto, reality.
Yes hypothetically but not in fact, not in reality, not personally known.

The Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error confuses the distinction between a possibility with being known in reality.
When this distinction is not made Vatican Council  comes across as 'ambiguous'.

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


AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY AND FISCHER MORE COLLEGE : THE DOCTRINAL DIVIDE

It is the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error which divides the Ave Maria University Fl and the Fischer More College, Fort Worth USA from offering the same traditional syllabus.

The Fischer More College is a traditional Catholic educational institution which interprets Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents using the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error. The result is a break with Tradition. So they put aside Vatican Council II and follow Tradition before the Council, including the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.

The Ave Maria University  whose founder-Chancellor is Tom Monaghan like the FMC interprets Vatican Council II and other magisterial documetns using the Cushing-Jesuit  Factual Error.The result is a break with Tradition.They instead accept Vatican Council II and reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. On many other aspects of the Catholic Faith they are traditional and Catholic.


Dr. Michael Dauphinais is the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculty, Associate Professor of Theology, at the Ave Maria University Fl.  and is in a position to clarify the doctrinal error in the Syllabus. This error is part of the teaching of the faculty in the Theology and Catechetical departments of the university.The Chancellor Tom Mohniyan can correct the error in the university and its affiliates.
 
Similarly Mr.Michael King the President of Fischer More College is also in a position to clarify the same doctrinal error in the FMC Syllabus.
 
Once these two Catholic  institutions agree that they can interpret Vatican Council II, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio etc without using the false premise of being able to see the dead who are exceptions to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, then they both have a common educational approach, which, is also rational.
 
May be the Chancellor of the Ave Maria University could held the FMC to stabilise itself since they will both be interpreting magisterial documents according to Catholic Tradition.

The first step is to identify the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.Then decide not to use it.
-Lionel Andrades