Author Topic: Definition of Cushingite (Read 3649 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #30 on:** August 25, 2014, 02:05:05 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn

If he stopped right there, it would have taught the dogma, but, being as how the enemy was writing the letter at the prompting of the enemy Cushing, he could not leave it at that, if he did, it would be incriminating for Cushing and show Fr. Feeney was not only innocent but also correct and may have even pushed V2 back "who knows?" how many years.

The word "however" is the next word in the letter - this is where you are suckered in hook, line and sinker - same as every other person was suckered in who believes the rest of the lie.

Thankfully it was not up to you to defend the dogma or the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. You being the great and knowledgeable compromiser that you are would have done the same thing the enemy does and the same thing you do today - side with the enemy while saying you are preaching what the Church has always taught.

If he stopped right here it would possible for him to be a Feeneyite. But since he keeps going he proves himself not to be a feeneyite but rather he proves to be Catholic.

The dogma declares that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. V1 decrees we are to understand dogma as once declared.

No one except the enemy could add a "however" to the dogma EENS.

No one except the enemy.

Certainly we can agree on that indisputable point for if you do not agree on that fact, you would self incriminate yourself as the enemy.

We agree with the Dogma once declared and understand it as the Church understands. You take it to mean no salvation for non-members which different than that actual dogma which states that there is no salvation outside the Church.

You cannot help yourself I see........you cannot stop where the Church stopped, you have to add your own "however".

As Fr. Wathen so clearly put it:

Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #31 on:** August 25, 2014, 02:06:39 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn

If he stopped right there, it would have taught the dogma, but, being as how the enemy was writing the letter at the prompting of the enemy Cushing, he could not leave it at that, if he did, it would be incriminating for Cushing and show Fr. Feeney was not only innocent but also correct and may have even pushed V2 back "who knows?" how many years.

The word "however" is the next word in the letter - this is where you are suckered in hook, line and sinker - same as every other person was suckered in who believes the rest of the lie.

Thankfully it was not up to you to defend the dogma or the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. You being the great and knowledgeable compromiser that you are would have done the same thing the enemy does and the same thing you do today - side with the enemy while saying you are preaching what the Church has always taught.

If he stopped right here it would possible for him to be a Feeneyite. But since he keeps going he proves himself not to be a feeneyite but rather he proves to be Catholic.

The dogma declares that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. V1 decrees we are to understand dogma as once declared.

No one except the enemy could add a "however" to the dogma EENS.

No one except the enemy.

Certainly we can agree on that indisputable point for if you do not agree on that fact, you would self incriminate yourself as the enemy.

We agree with the Dogma once declared and understand it as the Church understands. You take it to mean no salvation for non-members which different than that actual dogma which states that there is no salvation outside the Church.

You cannot help yourself I see........you cannot stop where the Church stopped, you have to add your own "however".

As Fr. Wathen so clearly put it:

Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.

I didn't add however. Father Wathen writing's are not approved and contradict the writing's that were approved.

JPaul · « **Reply #32 on:** August 25, 2014, 02:08:07 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn

If he stopped right there, it would have taught the dogma, but, being as how the enemy was writing the letter at the prompting of the enemy Cushing, he could not leave it at that, if he did, it would be incriminating for Cushing and show Fr. Feeney was not only innocent but also correct and may have even pushed V2 back "who knows?" how many years.

The word "however" is the next word in the letter - this is where you are suckered in hook, line and sinker - same as every other person was suckered in who believes the rest of the lie.

Thankfully it was not up to you to defend the dogma or the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. You being the great and knowledgeable compromiser that you are would have done the same thing the enemy does and the same thing you do today - side with the enemy while saying you are preaching what the Church has always taught.

If he stopped right here it would possible for him to be a Feeneyite. But since he keeps going he proves himself not to be a feeneyite but rather he proves to be Catholic.

The dogma declares that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. V1 decrees we are to understand dogma as once declared.

No one except the enemy could add a "however" to the dogma EENS.

No one except the enemy.

Certainly we can agree on that indisputable point for if you do not agree on that fact, you would self incriminate yourself as the enemy.

We agree with the Dogma once declared and understand it as the Church understands. You take it to mean no salvation for non-members which different than that actual dogma which states that there is no salvation outside the Church.

You cannot help yourself I see........you cannot stop where the Church stopped, you have to add your own "however".

As Fr. Wathen so clearly put it:

Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.

Catholic clarity, and integrity at its finest!

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #33 on:** August 25, 2014, 02:10:08 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn

If he stopped right there, it would have taught the dogma, but, being as how the enemy was writing the letter at the prompting of the enemy Cushing, he could not leave it at that, if he did, it would be incriminating for Cushing and show Fr. Feeney was not only innocent but also correct and may have even pushed V2 back "who knows?" how many years.

The word "however" is the next word in the letter - this is where you are suckered in hook, line and sinker - same as every other person was suckered in who believes the rest of the lie.

Thankfully it was not up to you to defend the dogma or the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. You being the great and knowledgeable compromiser that you are would have done the same thing the enemy does and the same thing you do today - side with the enemy while saying you are preaching what the Church has always taught.

If he stopped right here it would possible for him to be a Feeneyite. But since he keeps going he proves himself not to be a feeneyite but rather he proves to be Catholic.

The dogma declares that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. V1 decrees we are to understand dogma as once declared.

No one except the enemy could add a "however" to the dogma EENS.

No one except the enemy.

Certainly we can agree on that indisputable point for if you do not agree on that fact, you would self incriminate yourself as the enemy.

We agree with the Dogma once declared and understand it as the Church understands. You take it to mean no salvation for non-members which different than that actual dogma which states that there is no salvation outside the Church.

You cannot help yourself I see........you cannot stop where the Church stopped, you have to add your own "however".

As Fr. Wathen so clearly put it:

Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.

Catholic clarity, and integrity at its finest!

Aquinas does not know what he is talking about according to Fr. Wathen as he clearly teaches the necessity of baptism and then teaches BOD.

Cantarella · « **Reply #34 on:** August 25, 2014, 02:18:52 PM »

God bless Fr. Wathen

Quote

Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.

The pernicious modernist attack against EESN as follows:

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

"But it all depends on what you mean by "outside"",
"But it all depends on what you mean by "inside"",
"But it all depends what you mean by "the Church"",
"But it all depends what you mean by "salvation"".

Liberals play with the words until there is nothing left of the original dogma and those in false religions are saved THROUGH the Church while not IN Her.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #35 on:** August 25, 2014, 02:19:50 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

God bless Fr. Wathen
Quote

Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.

The pernicious modernist attack against EESN as follows:

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

"But it all depends on what you mean by "outside","
"But it all depends on what you mean by "inside","
"But it all depends what you mean by "the Church"."
"But it all depends what you mean by "salvation""

Liberals play with the words until there is nothing left of the original dogma and those in false religions are saved THROUGH the Church while not IN Her.

This is from the lady who does not know the difference between formal and public.

Stubborn · « **Reply #36 on:** August 25, 2014, 02:20:06 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth

We agree with the Dogma once declared and understand it as the Church understands. You take it to mean no salvation for non-members which different than that actual dogma which states that there is no salvation outside the Church.

You cannot help yourself I see........you cannot stop where the Church stopped, you have to add your own "however".

As Fr. Wathen so clearly put it:

Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.

I didn't add however. Father Wathen writing's are not approved and contradict the writing's that were approved.

Yes, you didn't add "however", you just completely mutilated clear dogma with modernists double talking mumbo jumbo - which effectively denies the dogma.

Fr. Wathen's writings are not approved by the modernist enemies who've long ago infiltrated the Church - since you are a Cushingite and among the modernist enemies, I wouldn't expect you to approve.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #37 on:** August 25, 2014, 02:21:46 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth

We agree with the Dogma once declared and understand it as the Church understands. You take it to mean no salvation for non-members which different than that actual dogma which states that there is no salvation outside the Church.

You cannot help yourself I see........you cannot stop where the Church stopped, you have to add your own "however".

As Fr. Wathen so clearly put it:

Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.

I didn't add however. Father Wathen writing's are not approved and contradict the writing's that were approved.

Yes, you didn't add "however", you just completely mutilated clear dogma with modernists double talking mumbo jumbo - which effectively denies the dogma.

Fr. Wathen's writings are not approved by the modernist enemies who've long ago infiltrated the Church - since you are a Cushingite and among the modernist enemies, I wouldn't expect you to approve.

I mutilated the Feeneyite heresy with the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church.

JPaul · « **Reply #38 on:** August 25, 2014, 05:39:55 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: J.Paul
Whenever a word such as however, or properly understood, or but, are added after the admission of a dogma, it is without doubt and without question a qualification of said dogma. Such must be said to be, be a doubting or denial of that dogma and a mortal sin.

Translation.

The infallible teaching of the universal magisterium and the Council of Trent is incorrect. It must be hard being a Feeneyite. Why do you pretend to be Catholic?

No No! my dear, Not Trent which would not infringe upon a dogma with a contrary idea, but rather the deFedeists such as yourself who do it regularly.

Stubborn · « **Reply #39 on:** August 26, 2014, 03:44:45 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth

We agree with the Dogma once declared and understand it as the Church understands. You take it to mean no salvation for non-members which different than that actual dogma which states that there is no salvation outside the Church.

You cannot help yourself I see........you cannot stop where the Church stopped, you have to add your own "however".

As Fr. Wathen so clearly put it:

Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.

I didn't add however. Father Wathen writing's are not approved and contradict the writing's that were approved.

Yes, you didn't add "however", you just completely mutilated clear dogma with modernists double talking mumbo jumbo - which effectively denies the dogma.

Fr. Wathen's writings are not approved by the modernist enemies who've long ago infiltrated the Church - since you are a Cushingite and among the modernist enemies, I wouldn't expect you to approve.

I mutilated the Feeneyite heresy with the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church.

So we know that you know the literal meaning of the dogma EENS, therefore you are not ignorant of it's meaning.
You call the defined dogma which you admittedly mutilated, a feeneyite heresy.

You call the mutilation of that dogma, an act of the infallible magisterium.

What you are clearly doing is rejecting the truth emphatically while embracing and promoting the modernist lies, but what's worse, you know you are doing it.

You can never make it to heaven that way - fyi.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** August 26, 2014, 04:54:39 AM »

So the Cushingite Ambrose is offended by the term and yet continues to call those of us who believe in EENS "Feeneyites", even though many do not accept the precise theology of Father Feeney.

So if it's OK to lump all your opponents with what you consider a derrogatory term (and yet in fact is a term of honor), we shall reciprocate by honoring you with the title of your hero, Richard Cushing, the hammer of heretics, who put down the greatest heresiarch of our day, the one who dared to believe in EENS, a greater enemy of the Church than all modernists combined (so you would take it based on your obsession with the subject). So Cushing can be considered nothing but a hero, and you should be honored by the term Cushingite.

Ambrose · « **Reply #41 on:** August 27, 2014, 06:51:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

So the Cushingite Ambrose is offended by the term and yet continues to call those of us who believe in EENS "Feeneyites", even though many do not accept the precise theology of Father Feeney.

So if it's OK to lump all your opponents with what you consider a derrogatory term (and yet in fact is a term of honor), we shall reciprocate by honoring you with the title of your hero, Richard Cushing, the hammer of heretics, who put down the greatest heresiarch of our day, the one who dared to believe in EENS, a greater enemy of the Church than all modernists combined (so you would take it based on your obsession with the subject). So Cushing can be considered nothing but a hero, and you should be honored by the term Cushingite.

When the glove fits, it fits. Read Mabel's post, words could not have been better written on this point.

Ambrose · « **Reply #42 on:** August 27, 2014, 06:52:15 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Have these supposed "Cushingites" done any of the following:
1. Claimed Cushing was a great theologian or saint
2. Set up a compound around the man himself, outside the auspices of the local diocese
3. Published and spread any of his works which were forbidden
4. Established a religious order outside the approval of the Church
5. Put up portraits or used the image of Cushing along with their alleged crusad
6. Consider Cushing a hero of the Church
7. Consider Cushing the father of their movement
8. Consider Cushing to be an absolute bastion of orthodox Catholic thought and action
9. Prayed in public with non-Catholics
10. Promoted prayer with heretics and infidels
11. Written papers, posts, blogs, articles quoting Cushing to support their position
12. Praise Cushing for any insubordination to Rome
13. Have ties to Cushing and his works personally or through parents/grandparents

If you are honest, you will see that this name is a misnomer. If you are dishonest, you will continue to use the word and head on your merry little way.

Cantarella · « **Reply #43 on:** August 28, 2014, 12:25:05 AM »

Thousands posts later, there are some here who still do not comprehend what the term Cushinguite is really about. :kick-can:

JPII and Pope Francis are good examples of what a Cushinguite is. No further need of explanation.

Cantarella · « **Reply #44 on:** August 28, 2014, 12:42:09 AM »

In case of persistent doubt, here are some pictures of famous Cushinguites (meaning they carry the Cushing liberal ~~error~~ virus), who think that those in false religions can actually have sanctifying grace, be temples of the Holy Ghost and achieve salvation without the Catholic Faith. SO why not pray with them?