+Cushing was the fox in charge of the hen house, who knows how many other Cushings there were at that time - in my opinion, there were many because all other bishops and cardinals were silent and let Fr. Feeney go to the slaughter.

Here is a link I made a long time ago showing some things +Cushing is known for - nobody in the hierarchy ever said or did anything about it......which leads to the conclusion that either they were all in on it, or you tell me why he was not only never censured by anyone, he was promoted to Cardinal.

 

Cushing was the heretic who was working outside the Church with elite non Catholics.  Cushing own sister married outside the Church.  And his peers were sodomites.  Who knows? Maybe he was one.  It’s mainly sodomites in Church pushing interfaith with false pagan religions and devil worshippers. 

"The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were
holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics
were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for
having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being
intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most
Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never
accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be
noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation
made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished
by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being
punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine." - The Loyolas and the Cabots (PDF attached)

So well said.  This shows that the promoters of error don't care to address a single variant of BOD, or salvation outside the Church, because any opinion is just fine, except the actual words of the Church as written, in which case, said person who believes the teachings mean what they say, is to be punished, excoriated, rebuked, publicly derided, excommunicated, even killed, until they cease and desist and believe anything else: from one person in history goes to heaven without baptism, to all men are saved.  Just don't believe the Church and baptism really are necessary.         

I would like to hear a convincing argument that he would have been given no Cushing. IMO this is the most productive discussion that will move the ball down the field at this point. It would seem Cushing's personal entanglements were entirely at fault here?

How can the OP be productive if it can't even be understood?  "I would like to hear a convincing argument that he would have been given no Cushing. "

Cushing's personal sins and his feelings for his sister and Jєωιѕн brother-in-law and his personal animus towards Feeney made him  major adversary but when Fr. Feeney's Jesuit superior told him to move and he refused that really was the end for him. 

I guess it depends on what you mean by moving the discussion forward.

I don't believe Feeney was a heretic, and yet I agree with Lefebvre and not Feeney.

I don't automatically jump down everyone's throat if I disagree with them.  Doesn't mean Fr. Feeney was 100% right on this issue.

This is why I'm not as interested in the main debate because pretty much all viable permutations of it have been discussed to death. This approach orthogonally approaches the matter. I'm guessing there is a sizable amount of people that hold some stripe of what you're saying, a lot of them are silent (IRL especially given the situation around BoD/EENS in a lot of chapels).

This is probably not your position but I'm going to throw it out there and say a lot of RnR types hold that both Cushing and Feeney were heretics but the only reason RnRs would call Feeney a heretic in the first place is because the hierarchy said so. This obviously presents a problem. I don't think anyone genuinely holds that Cushing was hyper orthodox (or even remotely) so it's not as productive to think about people who would immediately submit to Cushing if this same decision was made today. The case of Feeney today would look considerably different because of social media etc and a larger spotlight on clerical corruption. I think part of the reason this case is given a free pass to the hierarchy is because of the time it happened or else FSSP/diocesan TLM boomers would be watching Taylor Marshall vids on this right now.

Where's Xavier? We need some voices that do not agree in this thread to present some real arguments.