Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Marcia per la Vita 2015. Intervista a Virginia Coda Nunziante


John Lamont the Holy Office 1949 in a way, was saying they were wrong

Theologian John Lamont still does not see the connection between Vatican Council II and the heresy of the Letter of the Holy Office. However he acknowledges that there has been a big change.Exclusivism is no more the teaching of the Church after Vatican Council II. It was no more the teaching of the Church after 1949 and he still does not see the error. 

A Christmastide Gift for our Readers:
- Attacks on Thomism: a special historical and theological essay
Attacks on Thomism
a special essay for Rorate Caeli by John Lamont

The success of the neomodernists in seizing power in the Church was partly due to their tactical adroitness and to the favourable conditions that existed for them in the Church. They had learned from the first modernist crisis how to deal with magisterial opposition; there was not the will at the top of the Church to take drastic steps against them of the sort that had been successfully used by St Pius X, and there was no understanding of the necessity for such steps – Pius XII seems to have believed that his now forgotten encyclical Humani Generis had dealt with the situation adequately; for reasons that are not fully understood, the clergy and bishops were much more receptive to their message than was the case 40 years earlier.
The protean character of their position was also a key to their success. The idea that doctrine should be adapted to the thought of the day does not specify what adaptations should be made. This enabled neomodernists to be all things to all men, tailoring their appeal to the particular desires of any audience. This made possible alliances with powerful elements in the Church who were attracted not to neomodernism as such, but to abandoning particular doctrines that they found inconvenient or repellent. These doctrines were all concerned in one way or another with the exclusive character of the Catholic Church as a means for salvation; the condemnation of non-Catholic Christians as heretics and schismatics, the condemnation of non-Christian religions as paths to damnation, the insistence that the state must acknowledge and support the Catholic faith as the one true religion. These alliances were what permitted the neomodernists to achieve hegemony in the Church, and it is the support of these allies that to this day prevents any move against neomodernism by ecclesiastical authorities. Such a move would require enforcing all of Catholic doctrine, which would mean an intolerable return to exclusivism; it is found preferable in the last analysis to accept and promote those who reject all of that doctrine.-John Lamont, Rorate Caeili.
John Lamont teaches in the Archdiocese of Sydney where they assume that it was Fr.Leonard Feeney who was in heresy and not the Archbishop of Boston and  Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, who had issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

The former Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, would not answer two questions which show that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.The Holy Office made a mistake.
We can still interpret Vatican Council II 'with the exclusive character of the
Catholic Church as a means for salvation' if John Lamont  agrees that  it was the Holy Office which made an objective mistake.
Anyway, the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was lifted  without him having to recant. The St.Benedict Center also issued a statement, it is reported,  saying that Fr.Leonard Feeney  did not change his view and interpretation of the dogma .The  Holy Office 1949 did not excommunicate him again.
The Holy Office 1949 in a way, was saying that they were wrong. 
-Lionel Andrades

TWO QUESTIONS which Cardinal George Pell, John Lamont, and the SSPX (USA) will not answer.

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?  Is the answer YES or NO?


For the Lefebvrists, It's the Last Call to the Sheepfold

Catholic funeral for pro abortion Mario Cuomo

Cut the Baby Talk!

Fr.William Most and Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton assumed that there were exceptions to the dogma. So they were wrong at the onset.

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
Mighty Joe Young:
Father William Most, combatted the heresy of Feeney
Fr.William Most assumed that there are exceptions to the dogma which are known and visible to us.So he was wrong at the onset.His writings then went on to support this irrational proposition.
Otherwise he was a good apologist and I appreciate his work.


O, and one last thing. What evidence is there that Feeney was actually reconciled in that ceremony in that book store? As Michael Mazza noted
Michael Mazza makes the same error as Fr.Most. So I would be aware of this when reading what he writes.
He is trying to defend an irrational position.

After Archbishop Cushing suspended Fr. Feeney and placed the Center under interdict,
Yes, they were placed under interdict for not saying that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They would not say that the ghosts Cardinal Cushing could see were also visible to them.

nearly all of the St. Benedict Center community's one hundred members formed a "religious order" called the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and then moved out to Still River, Massachusetts, where the community eventually broke down into warring factions, a few of which have been since reconciled to the Church.
They are reconciled with liberal bishops who allege that in Vatican Council II there are known and visible exceptions to the dogma.So the bishops of Boston, Worcester and Manchester reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus because of allegedly being able to see deceased-exceptions to the dogma. This passes for Catholicism in New England,USA.

Mighty Joe Young:

Father Fenton on Suprema Haec Sacra

The Holy Office letter also teaches that "no implicit intention can produce its effect [of eternal salvation] unless the man has supernatural faith."

Lionel:Yes and this has nothing to do with the dogma.

 Here it is imperative to remember that the document speaks of that faith which is defined by the Vatican Council as "the supernatural virtue by which, with the impulse and aid of God's grace, we believe the things He has revealed to be true, not because of their intrinsic truth, seen in the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself revealing, Who can neither be deceived nor deceive." This is the faith which the same Vatican Council described as "the beginning of human salvation".
Again I would say that this is acceptable but please don't posit it as an exception.


In the text of the Suprema haec sacra we are reminded that the need for this supernatural faith holds true even where there is merely an implicit desire to enter the Church.

 In other words, it is possible to have a man attain salvation when he has no clear-cut notion of the Church, and desires to enter it only insofar as he wills to do all the things God wills that he should do...
Fine accepted as a hypothetical case.Though not relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.


When the desire is merely implicit, then a man's faith in the divinely revealed truths about the Church is likewise implicit...
O.K. We get the point.But when the Holy Office Letter infers that this case is an exception to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center then it is irrational and non traditional.

If a man is to be saved, he must accept as true, on the authority of God revealing, the teaching which God has communicated to the world as His public and supernatural message.
The following, then, are the explicit lessons brought out in the text of the Suprema haec sacra:
(1) The teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is a dogma of the Catholic faith.

Yes and the dogma does not mention any exceptions and is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.The letter supports Fr.Feeney here

(2) This dogma has always been taught, and will always be taught, infallibly by the Church's magisterium.
Yes and it did not mention any exception.

(3) The dogma must be understood and explained as the Church's magisterium understands and explains it.
Yes according to the Church's magisterium before 1949.
After 1949 it is inferred that there are known and visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation.

(4) The Church is necessary for salvation with both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means.
Yes and this has nothing to do with the interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. Since only God can distinguish between the necessity of precept and means.Everyone needs the baptism of water in the present times for salvation and we do not know any exception according to necessity of precept or means.

5) Because the Church is necessary for salvation with the necessity of precept, any person who knows the Church to have been divinely instituted by Our Lord and yet refuses to enter it or to remain within it cannot attain eternal salvation.
This would be judged by God.The Holy Office infers that there are visible exceptions so it mentions necessity of precept and means.This is as if we can know such cases in real life.

(6) The Church is a general and necessary means for salvation, not by reason of any intrinsic necessity, but only by God's Own institution, that is, because God in His merciful wisdom has established it as such.
According to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7) all need faith and baptism to avoid the fires of Hell. This is how God chose it.
Presently the majority of mankind are on the way to Hell since they die without faith and baptism.
Protestants and Orthodox Christians have the baptism of water but not Catholic Faith which includes the interpretation of the Gospels, the faith and moral teachings of the Church and the Sacraments through which God saves.

(7) In order that a man may be saved "within" the Church, it is not always necessary that he belong to the Church in re, actually as a member, but it can sometimes be enough that he belong to it as one who desires or wills to be in it. In other words, it is possible for one who belongs to the Church only in desire or in voto to be saved.
Yes it is possible hypothetically,but defacto every one needs to be a formal member of the Church(with faith and baptism) for salvation. This is the teaching of the dogma and Vatican Council II(AG 7) and we do not, and cannot, know of any objective exceptions.
This should have been clarified by the Holy Office -unless they assumed that there are defacto exceptions.


(8) It is possible for this desire of entering the Church to be effective, not only when it is explicit, but also (when the person is invincibly ignorant of the true Church) even when that desire or votum is merely implicit.
Yes and this case would not be a defacto exception to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation, as held by Fr.Leonard Feeney.


(9) The Mystici Corporis reproved both the error of those who teach the impossibility of salvation for those who have only an implicit desire of entering the Church, and the false doctrine of those who claim that men may find salvation equally in every religion.
'the impossibility of salvation for those who have only an implicit desire of entering the Church'.This is a hypothetical case. It would always be unknown and invisible for us. So what has this to do with the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to the St.Benedict Center and Fr.Leonard Feeney?


(10) No desire to enter the Church can be effective for salvation unless it is enlightened by supernatural faith and animated or motivated by perfect charity.
O.K but here the Holy Office implies that this is an objective case and is relevant.
They should have clarified here that they were referring to a hypothetical person.
They seemed confused and let confusion pass on to the rest of the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades

If you consider the Holy Office or Fr.Leonard Feeney in heresy determines how you interpret Vatican Council II

I think it was the Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who were in heresy for denying the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with their alleged 'exceptions', whom they could not name and which no Church document prior to 1949 mentioned.
The dogma said all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church with the baptism of water and they were saying, not all.
1.Who were the exceptions visible and known to them? Who were these objective exceptions in Boston and elsewhere? No one.
2.Where in Mystici Corporis or the Council of Trent was it said that the baptism of desire referred to personally known cases and so these hypothetical persons were exceptions to the dogma? No Church document infers this. This was the error of the magisterium and ecclesiastical hierarchy in Boston. It was a new doctrine in the Church. It was heresy.
It was irrational theology based on assuming that visible cases in Heaven  ( baptism of desire etc) were exceptions to the dogma.This was the irrational premise which was the foundation of their theology. They concluded that these 'visible cases' were 'explicit' exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors etc. So with an irrational proposition ( visible baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance) they concluded that Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were wrong.

The Archbishop also misused his power and excommunicated Fr.Leonard Feeney. The  excommunication was not lifted even during Vatican Council II.This gave them time to  enforce heresy, the new doctrine,in the Council.The popes were not supporting Fr.Leonard Feeney in public.No one was going to say that all the non Catholics in Boston need to convert for salvation and there were no exceptions.
Ask yourself where are the exceptions in 2015? Can you see anyone who does not need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and who will be saved?
How can we know that someone is saved outside the Church (without faith and baptism)?
Why did Fr.Leonard Feeney have to say in 1949 that there was salvation outside the Church? They did not know of any one saved outside the Church.
How can a defined dogma be replaced by a letter from a cardinal  and that too with an objective mistake?
The Letter was wrong in assuming that the baptism of desire was relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It had nothing to do with the dogma.
How could the magisterium in 1949 contradict the magisterium of the previous centuries?
Why did the Catholic professors at Boston College, members of the St.Benedict Center, lose their teaching job ? It was because they refused to proclaim this irrationality!
How we see Vatican Council II, how we interpret it, depends upon  how we see the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.It is like putting on two different coloured glasses.It changes how we look at the world.If Fr.Leonard Feeney is in heresy then Vatican Council II is a break with the past.If the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston were in heresy, then Vatican Council II is in agreement with Tradition.
We make our choice between two spectacles with different colours, at the point of the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case.To whom does the Boston Heresy refer to ?
So if Mons. Bruno Gherardini says Vatican Council II is wrong for 'these and those' logical reasons, I would say he is responding to the premise he has chosen.He assumes Fr.Leonard Feeney was in error.This is the premise chosen by the SSPX,many traditionalists and the Vatican Curia.
If someone(Lionel for example) says Vatican Council II is traditional for 'these or that' logical reason, I would say this is correct based on the choice of the two premises. For me the  Letter of the Holy Office made an objective mistake.
We choose to accept or reject the  premise made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. If you reject the irrational inference in the Letter, the Council becomes traditional and in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney's rigorist interpretation.(It is choosing between the red and blue columns, the left and right hand side column).
If Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)  wants Vatican Council II to be interpreted in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors he simply has to say that the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII  was in heresy. Vatican Council II changes.
If the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Fr.Leonard Feeney's community in the USA,want to interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with the rigorist interpretation  of the dogma, they simply have to say that the magisterium in 1949 made an objective, factual error. Vatican Council II changes. They have put on different glasses.
The theologians John Lamont, Thomas Pink 1 and others are not using this paradigm when discussing Vatican Council II, since like the original professors at Boston College, they could lose their teaching authority, now given to them by bishops,for whom Fr.Leonard Feeney is in heresy.Even the Franciscans of the Immaculate have to accept Vatican Council II using the red hand side column. They make the Gherardini choice.2
-Lionel Andrades



Lay Catholics,including bloggers still do not realize that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the blue or red column