What is the evidence that he was a bold and nefarious EENS denier? All i have read against him is what was written in the book about Feeney by one of his supporters, i forget the name. No sources there, just assertions.

I read a biography writtten by someone favorable to Cushing who attributed the following quote to him:

"No salvation outside the Church?  Nonsense.  Nobody's going to tell me that Christ came to die for any select group."

He was a well known ecuмenist who well before it came into vogue under the Vatican II popes was holding joint prayer / dialogue sessions with non Catholic religious groups.

He was probably an infiltrator then.

So why do people here defend this Cushing person and rail against Fr. Feeney?

He was a well known ecuмenist who well before it came into vogue under the Vatican II popes was holding joint prayer / dialogue sessions with non Catholic religious groups.

Indeed. Cushing was not the only one, of course, but many hereabouts regard even knowing something about history as a hate crime. I just got two more down thumbs in another subforum for ratting out Cardinal Mundelein (not the first time, of course, for either the thumbs or the ratting out of Chicago's hero).

A very great many American cardinals of the first half of the twentieth century were, like Cushing, Americanist straight through to the bone. So, too, were many American bishops. Sadly, there is also good reason to think that criminality and deviancy were also not recent arrivals on the US episcopal scene (readers can do their own digging if they have a mind to).

Twenty years ago a dear friend asserted that Americanism's roots went all the way back to John Carroll. I was unsure about his assessment then—but no longer.

Not everyone who attacks Father Feeney defends Cushing in general, but they definitely believe that Cushing was right and Father Feeney wrong in the dispute between them. Perhaps they should use that as a clue that they might be on the wrong side of this issue.

And perhaps they shouldn't. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc doesn't cease being a fallacy of argumentation when the magical name Feeney is chanted over it.

I'm off now to fetch my umbrella. I sense a thumb shower is about to begin falling.

Twenty years ago a dear friend asserted that Americanism's roots went all the way back to John Carroll.

I would agree with this assessment.

.

Link
Archbishop of Boston Cushing, was made a Cardinal of the Catholic Church by Pope John XXXIII in 1958.
 
He was also one of the cardinal electors in the 1963 papal conclave, which selected Pope Paul VI.

He was on good terms with practically the entire Boston elite.

Cushing built useful(?) relationships with Jєωs, Protestants, and institutions outside the usual Catholic community.

At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jєωs of deicide charge.

He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church.[16] In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades.

He was a member of the NAACP.

Oh, and his sister was married to a Jєω


Point Magazine May 1953
Among other poses, Archbishop Cushing was photographed for the Boston newspapers this past month wearing a large smile and the habit of a Franciscan friar. The occasion was his being made an honorary member of the friars’ First Order. After the ceremony, which took place in the auditorium of a local insurance company, the Archbishop had this to say: “I have always done my humble best to follow in the footsteps of Saint Francis of Assisi.” – [Sound familiar to anyone?]



Link May 1945 - Cushing attends  interfaith dinner



Link Nov. 1948 -  Archbishop Cushing, dwelling on the need for brotherhood, pledged the friendship of American Catholics with Jєωs.



Link April 1949 - Archbishop Cushing says teaching the dogma of No salvation outside the Church is “teaching ideas leading to bigotry.” Group is censured for publishing quarterly magazine contending that persons dying outside the Church could not be saved.



Link April 1949 - New catechism is changed, now upholds Boston College and Archbishop Cushing claim that there is salvation outside the Church.



Link Oct. 1949 - Fr. Feeney silenced by Archbishop Cushing for preaching there is no salvation outside the Church.



Link April 1949 - Cushing states: “This absolute requirement of an explicit desire to join the Catholic Church, as a condition of salvation is clearly wrong. All theologians hold that faith and charity or perfect contrition involving an implicit desire to join the Church suffice for salvation.” (Sounds like LoT, Ambrose, &etc.)



Link Feb. 1953 - Cushing excommunicated “heresy priest” for disobedience, not for heresy.



Link
Nov. 1970  - Cardinal Cushing receives praise from the Jєωs

Jєωιѕн leaders expressed sorrow today over the death yesterday at the age of 75 of Richard Cardinal Cushing. Archbishop of Boston since 1944 and a friend of Israel and the Jєωs. Philip E. Hoffman, president of the American Jєωιѕн Committee, said “Jєωιѕн people throughout the world will always remember with satisfaction Cardinal Cushing’s efforts to achieve an honest and meaningful statement on the Roman Catholic Church and the Jєωs five years ago in Rome at the Second Vatican Council.” Cardinal Cushing he said, “was at the forefront in this tremendously important endeavor,” and “the positive results of Vatican Council II will be a lasting memorial to the Cardinal.” World Jєωry. Mr. Hoffman said, “has lost a friend and champion.” Seymour Graubard, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. said Jєωs the world over will always remember the dramatic plea Cardinal Cushing made on the floor of Vatican Council II five years ago in Rome. “His distinctive voice echoed through the chamber as he asked the Council to “cry out” against “any inequity, hatred or persecution of our Jєωιѕн brothers,”

The UAHC official added that Cardinal Cushing “was a liberal in the truest sense of the word, practicing the principles of ecuмenism long before the term became fashionable.”

Cardinal Cushing, whose efforts at ecuмenism extended to ѕуηαgσgυє oratory, received a rare tribute when he implored Vatican Council II to reject the doctrine of Jєωιѕн guilt for the death of Jesus. The bishops, who normally do not applaud speakers, did so for him.



Link July 1977 - Fr. Feeney, silenced in 1949, excommunicated in 1953 for condemning the teachings of Boston College that persons outside the Church could attain salvation after death, was reinstated in 1972 without having to recant his position.

Engaging in a heated controversy with the founding fathers of USA might have resulted in a complete ban of the Catholic religion in the USA.

Of the many reasons that such an eventuality wouldn't have come to pass is that in the 1780s there was no such thing as the USA in the present-day sense of the term. Back then, there were thirteen independent and completely sovereign states, each of which was just as jealous in guarding its sovereign prerogatives as any country now in existence—at least any country not presently being invaded and pillaged by American mercenaries freedom-fighting, peace-loving heroes.

These independent states formed a confederacy, the United States, to which they surrendered a strictly limited amount of autonomy. Even after the signing of the 1787 Constitution (which effectively perpetrated a fraud on a lot of people who were far more trusting than they ought to have been), each independent state never surrendered the right to manage its own religious affairs, among others.* That is why some states had an established church well into the nineteenth century (the church establishment varying from one state to another), whereas others had none.

All that being said, no matter how accommodating John Carroll was or might have been, he could hardly have done anything that would have made the civil disabilities of Catholics in Connecticut and Massachusetts more onerous than they were for the next thirty to fifty years. As for active (i.e., bloody) persecution of American Catholics in any state, that was never on the cards back then. We can think what we like of the character and principles of the Virginia dynasty of presidents, but they were extraordinarily intelligent and politically astute men—as much so as any that have trod the earth—and they were not such fools as to toss a match into the powder keg of ethnic and religious division that daily threatened the stability of the states.
______________
*Recall the First Amendment's opening words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In other words, the central government enshrined a formal hands-off policy toward all matters of religious regulation into its founding docuмent. It took the arrival and ascendance of our present Tribal masters and benefactors and their Gentile stooges to render all such guarantees a dead letter.

This is a little off topic but is Charles Coulombe a "feeneyite"?

Quote from: Exurge

This is a little off topic but is Charles Coulombe a "feeneyite"?

If you call a strict defender of EESN (as written) a "feeneyite" then yes, and proudly so! He is also a very famous and talented American Monarchist / Royalist.

My purpose in asking was because he has done many shows with Heiner and other sedevacantists who all regard "Feeneyites" as heretics and people in mortal sin, so i thought, if that's what they think about a Feeneyite, then how is it that they make those shows with someone like him to begin with, and seem as if all was well? Isn't that uncharitable from their point of view, or hypocritical?