Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was based on an objective mistake

Aug 29, 2014 at 12:53am
Patman Avatar



Post by Patman on Aug 29, 2014 at 12:53am

Decree Excommunicating Leonard Feeney, 13 February 1953Prior to the excommunication, Feeney received the following summons to appear before the Holy Office from Cardinal Pizzardo on November 22, 1952.

The Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.
_____________________________________________________________________DECREE

THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.
Marius Crovini, Notary
AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100
If Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for not assuming that the baptism of desire was an exception to his traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then the Holy Office made a factual error.Since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be exceptions to the dogma since these cases are in Heaven.
How can those who are saved in Heaven also be explicit exceptions on earth to all needing the baptism of water for salvation?
It is a fact of life that we cannot see people in Heaven.So if the Holy Office inferred that we could see the dead, who were relevant to Fr.Leonard Feeney's traditional interpretation of the dogma, then the Holy Office and Pope Pius XII made a mistake.It was not only a mistake it was much more.It was heretical.
If the baptism of desire is an exception then it must be explicit. If it does not exist in our reality it is not an exception.
So the Holy Office was telling Fr.Leonard Feeney that he was wrong.Since for Pope Pius XII there was salvation outside the Catholic Church. There were known exceptions! They could meet someone who was saved or was going to be saved without the baptism of water!?.
There was no magisterial document prior to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ,which as a precedent, said that the baptism of desire was visible to us or that the baptism of desire was an exception to all needing the baptism of water. There is no such magisterial document.
In Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura etc there are only references to implicit desire, invincible ignorance etc.It  is not stated that these cases could be known in the present times by us humans, or that they contradict the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.
So if the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 had only mentioned implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance it would not be a problem. It would be traditional.However the Letter of the Holy Office goes further and assumes that these cases are explicit and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. This was a new doctrine. It is also heretical for it rejects the traditional interpretation of the dogma which Pope Pius XII called ' in infallible statement'(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).It changes the 'I believe in one baptism( baptism of water) for the forgiveness of sin'(Nicene Creed) to 'I believe in many baptisms which replace the baptism of water?
So if Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommuicated for doctrine it was an oversight of Pope Pius XII.
We can see the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XIII when it infers that  the baptism of desire etc are explicit and so are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This same error was used by Cardinal  Joseph Ratzinger,Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) 1 he says with reference to the baptism of  water, that God 'is not bound by his sacraments.' It is assumed that there are known exceptions to the dogma on salvation which says,according to CCC 1257, God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism.
Then surprisingly CCC 1258-1260 also says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are substitutes for the baptism of water.How can hypothetical cases be known substitutes for every one receiving the baptism of water in 2014.
 
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.(We do not know any defacto case for example in 2014, in Rome, who can be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So why mention it if such a case does not exist in our reality? Is Pope Pius XII implying that these cases are visible for us ?)  This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.(Again is it being implied that these, are personally known cases in the present times. These are visible in the flesh exceptions ? This is being inferred other wise why mention it?)

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.(This is a hypothetical, imaginary case.It is a probability. Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney).
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.(We do not know any case 'united to the Church by desire' who has been saved or is going to be saved. These are hypothetical cases. Pope Pius XII assumed that they were defacto, known cases ?)
-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
So the excommunication was a mistake. I say this not based on theology but on the knowledge that objectively we cannot see or know any exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no physical exceptions present.Neither can there be any in future.Since they are known only to God.
The same error is inferred in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. It is assumed,for example, that Lumen Gentium  16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is visible to us in real life. Since it is allegedly explicit for us,it is inferred to be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The same reasoning is used with NA 2,LG 8,UR 3 etc.Hypothetical cases are assumed to be objectively known.
So traditionalists  and sedevacantists (SSPX, FSSP,CMRI,MHFM etc) reject Vatican Council II  as a break with Tradition when this irrational premise is used.While liberals  accept Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition, while also using the same irrational inference.
The problem began during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.The excommunication was based on an objective mistake.
-Lionel Andrades
1
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

http://tedeum.boards.net/thread/18/excommunication-fr-leonard-feeney?page=1#scrollTo=71
http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3461680.0

My questions and answers are based on sound Catholic teaching, Traditional teaching.It is the Deposit of the Faith

Dear Lionel,
in the Creed I profess this: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
Lionel:
Even I believe in the one,holy,Catholic and apostolic Church which teaches :-
1. God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism (CCC 1257) and so every one in 2014 needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no exceptions.
What about you, do you also believe this?
2. I believe that in CCC 1257 when the Magisterium says 'God is not limited to the Sacraments' it implies that every one in 2014 does not need the baptism of water for salvation and so there is no more an ecumenism of return, it  is wrong.
The magisterium implies that there are known cases of persons saved or who are going to be saved in 2014 so there is no more an ecumenism of return, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been superseded.This is also wrong. This is irrational. It is non traditional. It is not part of the Deposit  of the Faith. It is heretical since it rejects a defined dogma and the Creed.
Do you also accept this ?
3. The Magisterium in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has  made a factual error for me when it assumes salvation in Heaven is objetively seen and so is an explicit exception to the literal and traditional interpretation of extar ecclesiam nulla salus.
Do you also accept this? If not why ?
4. I believe the Magisterium was wrong when it stated that 'it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church'. Defacto, in Rome in 2014 for example we do not and cannot know any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
What do you believe and teach on this point ?
 
The same Church that defined “extra Ecclesia nulla salus” teaches and recognizes the doctrine we can find in the Catechism of Catholic Church, as the Holy Father John Paul II stated clearly and authoritatively in the Apostolic Constitution “Fidei depositum”:
Lionel:
There is confusion in the Catechism of the Catholic Church so could you clarify your position on the four points above?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority,is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium.I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!”
So the problem is not in the Teaching of the Church, but in your wrong lecture and interpretation (or better misinterpretation). Your questions are a series of nonsenses. My only answer is this you can read just in this message. I think is enough clear.
Lionel:
As a priest- professor of theology and philosophy you have to show me precisely where I am wrong.I have specified exactly what I believe.My questions and answers are based on sound Catholic teaching, Traditional teaching.It is the Deposit of the Faith.
Due to an oversight it was overlooked in the preparation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
In Christ
Lionel
____________________________________________________
September 2, 2014
 

'It is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church' in Rome, in 2014, for example?. Legion of Christ priest does not answer


1. (Lionel: Is the Magisterium saying for you that God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism and so every one in 2014 needs the baptism of water for salvation and -God is not bound by his Sacraments and so every one in 2014 does not need the baptism of water for salvation?)
 
 
 
2. (Lionel: Is the Magisterium saying for you that every one in 2014 does not need the baptism of water for salvation and so there is no more an ecumenism of return?
Also there are known cases of persons saved or who are going to be saved in 2014 so  there is no more an ecumenism of return, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been superseded?
 
 
 
3. (Lionel:The Magisterium in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has not made a factual error for you?)


4. ( Lionel :'it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church' in Rome in 2014 for example?)
 
_______________________________________________________
 
Dear Fr.R.,
Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.
Please let me know what is the teaching of the Magisterium, here for you. The questions are in orange. I assume this is what you will be teachng.
In Christ
Lionel

September 1, 2014






1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.-Catechism of the Catholic Church
(Lionel: Is the Magisterium saying for you that God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism and so every one in 2014 needs the baptism of water for salvation and -God is not bound by his Sacraments and so every one in 2014 does not need the baptism of water for salvation?)

Image removed by sender.

We do not know of any possibility ( hypothetical case) which is a known reality in the present times(2014). We do not know of any one saved outside the Church.So we do not know any exception to the traditional teaching on 'all' needing 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) for salvation. There are no known cases to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So how can the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, approved by Pope Benedict XVI, agree in the Balamand Declaration (N.30) that an ecumenism of return is outdated theology?

(Lionel: Is the Magisterium saying for you that every one in 2014 does not need the baptism of water for salvation and so there is no more an ecumenism of return?
Also there are known cases of persons saved or who are going to be saved in 2014 for there is no more an ecumenism of return, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been superseded?


Do you know how? It is based on the same error in the Catechism of the Catholic Church N.1257.

30. To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church connected with the problem which is the object of this document, special attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those who, in any way, are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place where the other Church traditionally has its roots. -Balamand Declaration
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has referenced the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as if it is a magisterial document.
1.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual error when it inferred that implicit desire (baptism of desire) and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us . So then it was concluded that these cases now in Heaven (but who are also personally visible to the physical eye) were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.How can the dead be exceptions?
2.The Letter of the Holy Office did not have the signature and seal of the Secretary of the Holy Office.Neithe was it placed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.
3.It was placed in the Denzinger by Fr.Karl Rahner S.J with a reference from an American magazine.
4.It was made public by the Archdiocese of Boston three years after it was issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani. It was made public after Cardinal Francesco died.

Image removed by sender.

Aside from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 no Catholic magisterial document infers that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
(Lionel:
The Magisterium in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has not made a factual error for you?)
It is upon this factual error in theology, the dead man visible theory , that Catholic theologians agreed in the Balamand Declaration that there is no more an ecumenism of return in the Catholic Church and there is a new ecclesiology.
The same error is there in the International Theological Commission paper Christianity and the World Religions .'Christianity and the World Religions' and 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptiized' .
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.-'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptiized'
( Lionel :'it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church' in Rome in 2014 for example?)

Really? Not always required? Where is the known exception? Where is the defacto explicit case of someone saved outside the Church?
This error has been repeated by Cardinal Ratzinger in the Catechism of the Catholic Church N.1257,when he says God is not bound to the Sacraments.
The text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was approved by Pope John Paul II on 25 June 1992, and promulgated by him on 11 October 1992 according to Wikpedia. In 1997 the same error was there in Christianity and the World Religions issued by the International Theological Commission and approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. The same error was approved by Pope Benedict XVI in the ITC 's The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized.


International Theological Commission, Vatican 1997.

66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).(Lionel: Did the Magisterium of Pius XII say that they are visible to us in the present times ? Does he say here that they are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. ?This has to inferred by the ITC. It is wrongly inferred ?.) The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII.( In other words there are known exceptions outside the Church.For there to be exceptions these cases would have to be personally known, physically visible.But how can they be seen with the naked eye when they are in Heaven?) The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69).(These are hypothetical cases. Possibilities cannot be known realities who are visible to us) In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices;( and this is relevant since these persons now in Heaven are also visible on earth?) this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870). But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).
67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics (where does it say it is directed exclusively to Catholics ?) and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation (those who know or are in invincible ignorance are not known to us.Only God can know who is saved as such. So what bearing does this have on the dogma? Why mention it?). The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression( with the irrational inference, the visible-dead premise?).-Christianity and the World Religions, International Theological Commission, Vatican.1997.
-Lionel Andrades
 
_________________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
Dear Lionel,
in the Creed I profess this: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
The same Church that defined “extra Ecclesia nulla salus” teaches and recognizes the doctrine we can find in the Catechism of Catholic Church, as the Holy Father John Paul II stated clearly and authoritatively in the Apostolic Constitution “Fidei depositum”:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!”
So the problem is not in the Teaching of the Church, but in your wrong lecture and interpretation (or better misinterpretation). Your questions are a series of nonsenses. My only answer is this you can read just in this message. I think is enough clear.
Cordially,
Fr. R.
____________________________________________