Having said that, let us move to the larger question. It is clear from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated by Pope John Paul II that the Church currently promotes a less exclusive understanding of the dogma “Outside the Church no salvation” (EENS) as well as the effects of desire for baptism (BOD) and pre-baptismal martyrdom for the faith (BOB). Lest I be accused of bias in my canonical opinion, I want to note up-front that I personally accept the teaching on these issues outlined in the CCC.-Peter VereIt is important to note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church has placed de jure and de facto salvation together. The need for explicit entry into the Catholic Church and implicit faith (salvation without the baptism of water) is grouped together. It does not even use the words de jure or de facto for precision.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has no reference to de facto salvation specifically and only as in the ex cathedra dogma. The dogma states that salvation is explicit within the Catholic Church and with no exceptions.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates that de facto non Catholics need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.It also uses the word all (CCC 836)as does Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7).
CCC 1257 affirms the dogma when it says that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. This is a reference to explicit salvation for all with no known exceptions.
Similarly for St. Thomas Aquinas salvation is explicit in only the Catholic Church with no exceptions. St. Thomas Aquinas recognizes the possible exceptions to the baptism of water (invincible ignorance) but does not place the exceptions in opposition to the general rule for everyone;all, needing to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
At the same time, the Catechism could mistakenly be interpreted to suggest that those in invincible ignorance (implicit faith) do not have to de facto enter the Catholic Church. It is vague on this point of extra ecclesiam nulla salus since it has gouped implcit and expicit faith together. If it really did say that those in invincible ignorance (implicit faith) do not have to enter the Catholic Church and it is kwon to us de fact it would be a heresy. It would contradict the infallible, ex cathedra, thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Just Not Knowing (848)Those who are in invincible ignorance can be saved -and this does not conflict with the ex cathedra dogma that everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church to avoid Hell. It is a conceptual, de jure understanding.
However, those, who through no fault of their own do not know either the Gospel of Christ or his Church, can achieve salvation by seeking God with a sincere heart and by trying to do God's will (Second Vatican Council). Although God can lead all people to salvation, the Church still has the duty to evangelize all men.-CCC 848
"Outside the Church There is No Salvation" (846)Here the Catechism places de jure and defacto salvation together. It does not conflict with the ex cathedra teaching that everyone with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church .We cannot personally know any cases of a genuine invincible ignorance, baptism of desire or a good conscience.
How do we understand this saying from the Church Fathers? All salvation comes from Christ through his Body, the Church which is necessary for salvation because Christ is present in his Church...
The Church as Noah's Ark (845)Here again we have an affirmation of the ex cathedra dogma, the infallible teaching that de facto everyone needs to enter the only Ark of Salvation.
The Father wants to reunite all humanity into his Son's Church. According to St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, the Church was prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saved the world from the flood.-CCC 845
The dogma, the infallible teaching is that de facto every person needs to enter the Catholic Church, Jesus' Mystical Body (Colossians) for salvation, with no exceptions, known to us. Pope Pius XII called it the infallible teaching (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).The infallible teaching cannot be changed or altered.If it is changed or altered than it is a new doctrine.Then it could wrongly mean that we can also change the Church teaching on abortion, homosexuality etc.
If there are exceptions to the ordinary means of salvation which is the baptism of water and Catholic Faith it will be known to God only and Jesus only will judge. So in a sense mentioning it is irrelevant at the level of personal evangelisation personal contact with non-Catholics.
All are Called (836)Here again we have an affirmation of the ex cathedra dogma and the word all is used as in Ad Gentes 7.
All men are certainly called to this Catholic unity. The Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and all mankind belong to or are ordered to Catholic unity.-CCC 836
Here is the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.).The ex cathedra dogma does not say that ‘those who through no fault of their own do not know either the Gospel or Christ or his Church, or who have a sincere heart’ do not have to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. Everyone has to enter the Church and there are no exceptions. This was the infallible teaching for centuries (Letter of the Holy Office 1949)
2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 302.).
3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS)
However, those, who through no fault of their own do not know either the Gospel of Christ or his Church, can achieve salvation by seeking God with a sincere heart and by trying to do God's will (Second Vatican Council). Although God can lead all people to salvation, the Church still has the duty to evangelize all men.-CCC 848It means that those who are the exceptions to the baptism of water are rare cases,' in certain circumstances’, known only to God (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). We cannot judge. So the explicit salvation teaching for all to enter the Church, of the Catechism of the Catholic Church still holds. It is in accord with the dogma.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says all people need to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven, the Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the flood and the Catholic Church knows of no other means to eternal beatitude other than the Baptism of water (which is given to adults who have Catholic Faith).The Catechism says God wants all people to be united into the Catholic Church, it is in the Catholic Church that God wants all people to worship him. So this is a reference to the infallible teaching based on the Bible and Catholic Tradition. It is the teaching of the Magisterium of the past and today.
(Ref. Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 168,171,172,173
Catechism of the Catholic Church n.845, 846,847,848,837,838)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sault Ste. Marie, Canada
petevere@msn.com
Brother Andre Marie, M.I.C.M.
Saint Benedict Center
Post Office Box 627
Richmond, New Hampshire 03470
Feast of St. Mary Magdalene de Pazzi
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Dear Brother Andre Marie,
I hope this letter finds you and the other brothers well. Allow me to apologize for taking my time in responding to your last letter. I wanted to be thorough in my response - especially since you have asked if my response might be made public, of which I have no objection. Please note that while I do not speak on behalf of the Church in an official capacity - given that I do not hold office with a tribunal or ecclesiastical entity that has been asked to investigate this question -what follows is my professional opinion as a canon lawyer.
To recap our last exchange, you wrote: “I'm wondering if you are able to put in writing something testifying to the lawfulness of holding Father Feeney's position as a Catholic in good standing with the Church. Back in January, you agreed to do this. Again, I'm not asking you to vouch for our canonical situation here in the Manchester Diocese; I'm simply asking for the expert opinion of a canon lawyer on the larger question.”
To begin, as you point out, the question concerning your canonical status with the Diocese of Manchester is separate from the question concerning Fr. Feeney’s status as one who died in full communion with Rome, as well as the status of his spiritual descendants who hold to his same position. Before we proceed to the larger question, I would just like to assure you of our family prayers that in God’s time the question of your canonical status resolve itself favourably. Should you require my assistance at that time, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Having said that, let us move to the larger question. It is clear from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated by Pope John Paul II that the Church currently promotes a less exclusive understanding of the dogma “Outside the Church no salvation” (EENS) as well as the effects of desire for baptism (BOD) and pre-baptismal martyrdom for the faith (BOB). Lest I be accused of bias in my canonical opinion, I want to note up-front that I personally accept the teaching on these issues outlined in the CCC.
However, that is a debate for another time. The question currently before us is the following:
What of those, like the spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney, who hold to a more restrictive understanding on these issues? Are they Catholics in good standing with the Church? The answer is yes for a number of reasons:
1) There is no question Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI lifted Father’s excommunication while Father was still alive, and there is no evidence that Father recanted his understanding of EENS, BOB, or BOD. The actual lifting of Father’s excommunication was executed by Fr. Richard Shmaruk, a priest of the Boston Archdiocese, on behalf of Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester. While visiting Boston about ten years ago, I spoke with Fr. Shmaruk and he personally corroborated the events that led to him reconciling Fr. Feeney with the Church.
On pages 259 to 262 of his book They Fought the Good Fight, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott diligently chronicles the reconciliation of Fr. Feeney, as well as the subsequent reconciliation of several of Father’s spiritual descendants. Brother Sennott quotes from two respectable Catholic news sources (The Advocate and the Catholic Free Press). I have independently confirmed the quotations and context of the primary sources.
Brother Sennottt also notes that Father’s memorial mass was celebrated by Bishop Bernard Flanagan in the Cathedral of St. Paul, Worcester. This would have given rise to scandal had Father not been fully reconciled with the Church. Br. Sennott’s book received an imprimi potest from Bishop Timothy Harrington of the Diocese of Worcester, meaning the book is free from doctrinal or moral error. Thus unless one is willing to declare oneself sedevacantist or sedeprivationist, the evidence is overwhelming that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church without recanting his position.
2) Most of Fr. Feeney’s spiritual descendants have been reconciled with the Church without having to renounce or recant their interpretation of BOB, BOD, or EENS. This was the case with those who reconciled in 1974 and would go on to found St. Benedict Abbey in Still River, as well as the sisters of St. Anne’s House in Still River who reconciled in 1988, and most recently with St. Benedict Centre in Still River who reconciled under Br. Thomas Augustine, MICM.
Regarding the last group, I should note they had achieved a sacramental reconciliation long before their juridical reconciliation. This was the subject of the first paper I ever wrote as a young licentiate student in canon law. While researching this paper in 1997, I visited the various communities descended from Fr. Feeney and the Harvard student movement, noting with interest how despite no formal reconciliation at the time, Br. Thomas’s community had an in-residence chaplain appointed by the Bishop of Worcester. I also noted with interest that the Bishop visited the community regularly, and that he also confirmed the community’s children. In reading canon 844, sacraments should only be shared with non-Catholics under the most strict and extenuating of circumstances. It is clear, that in keeping with canon 213, the Diocese of Worcester was ensuring for the pastoral and sacramental care of Brother Thomas’s community as if they were Catholics.
It was similarly clear from talking to Br. Thomas Augustine, as it was from talking to Mother Theresa next door at St. Anne’s House, that each of these communities still held the same interpretation of BOB, BOD and EENS as Fr. Feeney.
With regards to the 1988 reconciliation of Mother Theresa, MICM and the sisters of St. Anne’s House in Still River, Fr. Lawrence A. Deery, JCL, at the time the Diocese of Worcester’s Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs and acting in his official capacity, wrote the following: “1) The Sisters were asked to ‘understand’ the letter of the then Holy Office dated 8 August 1949. They were not asked to ‘accept’ its contents. 2) The Sisters were asked to make to make a Profession of Faith. Nothing else was required [...] In our discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views. Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings.” Need I remind you that the man who was Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of this consultation is now Pope Benedict XVI, the Church’s Supreme Pontiff?
3) In 1988, Mr. John Loughnan, a layman from Australia who happens to be a friend of mine, wrote the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) requesting clarification on several controversies surrounding the SSPX. Mr. Loughnan also inquired as to the status within the Church of Fr. Feeney’s followers.
Concerning this last question, Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary of the PCED, replied to Mr. Loughnan as follows in N. 343/98 dated 27 October 1998: “The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.”
While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to oversee the reconciliation and well-being of traditionalists within the Church.
On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of EENS, BOB and BOD.
Pax Christi,
Pete Vere
Pete Vere, JCL
cc: Brother Matthew, MICM
St. Benedict Centre, Still River
Posts
