Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities like Peter Vere interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality

Peter J. Vere, 
JCL 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.
Lionel:
 He means he accepts BOB and BOD as being exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For him these case of BOD and BOB would be explicit and known in the present times to be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church. There are known exceptions for Peter Vere.
__________________

 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. 
Lionel:
Agreed. Fr.Leonard Feeney held the strict intepretation of the dogma and did not consider BOD and BOB as being exceptions.
_____________________

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.
Lionel:
Fr.Richard Shmaruk according to a report he wrote for an encylopedia also assumed  BOB and BOD were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.He held the same position as Peter Vere. They supported the Holy Office 1949 factual error.
_______________________

 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.
Bros
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.
Lionel:
Yes.
The problem exists only with Vatican Council II.All of them like their bishops, assume Vatican Council II (LG 16 ) is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

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.”
Lionel:
For Ecclesia Dei too there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in Vatican Council II.Who are these exceptions? Where do they reside ? In Rome?

 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.
Lionel:
For them BOD and BOD are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. However for them, as also for Peter Vere, Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance ) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma.In A recent interview with Christine Niles, Brother Andre Marie MICM did not say that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite
____________________

 In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy,
Lionel:
The Church, contemporary  magisterium, considers BOD and BOB to be explicit. For the present magisterium BOD and BOB are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is confirmed in two theological papers of the Vatican's International Theological Commission,
The Vatican Curia, use the same irrational reasoning in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.The dead-saved are visible exceptions to the dogma it is inferred. They accept the Marchetti-Cushingite reasoning and reject Feeneyism.This is irrational and heretical but also magisterial since 1949.
____________________

 and that she acknowledges the good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of EENS, BOB and BOD.
Lionel:
By restricitive Peter Vere means Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities, the St.Benedict Centers, reject BOD and BOB as being exceptions to EENS. 
While Peter Vere, the SSPX and other traditionalists infer that BOB and BOD refer to cases personally known in the present times, for them to be defacto exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church, to avoid Hell.This non traditional position which contradicts the pre-1949 magisterium, is also held by the sedevacantists influenced by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
-Lionel Andrades

http://catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf?e97c72

This group of traditionalists instead of correcting the factual error of 1949 consolidated it and did not expose it

Bishop Dolan

From the sedevacantist website:

What's wrong with Vatican II? FAQs
 from "Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Rev. Donald J. Sanborn

1. What is wrong with the Second Vatican Council?
The Second Vatican Council taught doctrines which had been already condemned by the Church, and enacted disciplines which are contrary to the Church's teaching and constant practice.
2. What doctrines did it teach which were already condemned?
There are four major errors concerning: (1) the unity of the Church; (2) ecumenism; (3) religious liberty; (4) collegiality.
3. What false doctrine does it teach concerning the unity of the Church?
Vatican II teaches heresy concerning the unity of the Church, namely that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine is contained principally in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning is confirmed in statements of Paul VI and his successors, particularly in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in the 1992 Statement concerning Church and Communion, and in the Ecumenical Directory.
 It is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, contained principally in Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII, Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII, and in the condemnations of the "Branch Theory" made by the Holy Office under Pope Pius IX.
Lionel:
Ad Gentes 7 tells us that the Church of Christ is exclusively identified with the Catholic Church; it is with those who have 'faith and baptism'.This is a confirmation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the traditional rigorist interpretation.The dogma says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church.
There is no text in Lumen Gentium 8 (subsistit it) which says all do not need faith and baptism.There is no text which says that the Church is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church. It is the liberals, sedevacantists and many traditionalists, who infer that LG 8 says that the Church is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church.

4. What false doctrine does it teach concerning ecumenism?
The teaching of Vatican II concerning ecumenism, which states that non-Catholic religions are a "means of salvation," is overtly heretical.
Lionel:
Where is the text which says that non Catholic religions are a means of salvation.This is an inference.The text admits the possibility of a non Catholic being saved in his religion.
We do not know of any one saved outside the Church without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. Neither does the text claim that there is such a person who is known to us.Neither does Bishop Sanborn know of any such person in the present times.
The dogma says outside the Church there is no salvation.Ad Gentes 7 says all need 'faith and baptism'. Let us call this statement A.It is an orthodox passage in Vatican Council II.
For Bishop Sanborn there is some text which says there are non Catholics saved. Let us call this statement B.For him these persons are not hypothetical cases but personally known cases in the present times.So B is an exception to A. They would have to be known to be exceptions to the dogma. Hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions in the present times.So it is with this irrational premise he interprets Vatican Council II and then infers the Council is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional teaching on ecumenism, the need for an ecumenism of return.
Bishop Sanborn is referring to a hypothetical case and he assumes it is objective in the present times to contradict the dogma.He is using the reasoning of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani who assumed that the baptism of desire etc referred to known cases in 1949. So for Marchetti the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma. For Marchetti the baptism of desire referred to known cases in 1949 who were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.How could Marchetti know all this? 
Similarly how can Bishop Sanborn know someone saved by his religion or without the baptism of water ? Then why does he postulate this theoretical case as being an exception to traditional ecumenism according to the dogma?
___________________________


 This doctrine directly contradicts the teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, called by Pope Pius IX "a most well-known Catholic dogma." 
Lionel:
If there are people saved in another religion and we do not know who they are then how can this contradict the rigorist interpretation of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation?
___________________________

In addition, the ecumenical practices which have resulted from this heretical doctrine are directly contrary to Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI.
Lionel:
For Bishop Sanborn B is an exception to A. So Vatican Council II would contradict Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI.
____________________________

5. What false doctrine does it teach concerning religious liberty?
The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty, contained in Dignitatis Humanae, nearly word for word asserts the very doctrine which was condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, and by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty also contradicts the royalty of Jesus Christ in society as expressed in Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI, and the constant attitude and practice of the Church with regard to civil society.
Lionel:
This is an opinion. It differs with other traditionalists.For them Dignitatis Humanae does not contradict the traditional teaching on religious liberty.
Immagine correlata
Bishop Sanborn interprets Vatican Council II with B being an exception to A. The liberals do the same.They also interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past using the irrational reasoning of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.
Immagine correlata
The Marchetti error was accepted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davis, Dietrich Von Hildrebrand and the magisterium of Pope Pius XII and John XXIII before Vatican Council II.The SSPX continues with this religous formation. This has been the formation of Fr.Anthony Cekada in the SSPX.
Bishop Donald Sanborn was ordained a priest by Archbishop Lefebvre.He was taught the same error.The same error is there in a book publised by Fr.Jean Marie Gleize with the Introduction of approval by Bishop Bernard Fellay.
This group of traditionalists instead of correcting the factual error of 1949 consolidated it and did not expose it.-Lionel Andrades

http://www.traditionalmass.org/issues/

http://www.traditionalmass.org/priests/sanborn.php




The subsist it confusion is based on B being an exception to A
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/subsist-it-confusion-based-on-b-is.html


The subsist it confusion is based on B being an exception to A

 









traditionalmass.org | Traditional Latin Mass Resources

The Magisterium of Vatican II
Rev. Curzio Nitoglia

 atzmon-moffa-nitoglia-400
Subsists in: “Found in, but not Exclusively Identified with”
What does this formula “subsists in” actually mean? It was chosen deliberately in order to deny that the Church of Christ is only the Catholic Church. “Subsistit in” means, in fact, that the Church of Christ is found in the Catholic Church, but is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church.
“The change of est (Pius XII) to subsistit (Gaudium et Spes) took place for ecumenical reasons,” explains Fr. Mucci, S.J. in Civiltà Cattolica (December 5, 1988). And Fr. Louis Bouyer writes that thanks to the “subsistit” introduced by the Council, one has sought to“propose again the idea of the one Church, even if it is presently divided among the diverse Christian Churches, as if among many branches.”[8] This idea was taken up again by John Paul II in Canterbury. Furthermore Cardinal Willebrands, on May 5th and 8th of 1987, held some conferences in which he affirmed that the “subsistit” supersedes and corrects the est of Pius XII (cf. Documentation Catholique, January 3, 1988). While the Council was in progress, Bishop Carli (then Bishop of Segni) and Fr. Aniceto Fernandez, Master General of the Dominicans, vigorously intervened to request the correction of Lumen Gentium by using the word est instead of “subsistit,” in order to unequivocally reaffirm the Catholic Faith. But the ecumenical choice — or better, the heretical choice — prevailed. Fr. Congar writes:
The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute “Roman”missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body.
Lionel: Only Catholics are members of the Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7. Those who have faith and baptism are members of the Catholic Church. Let's call this statement A.
 Thus they are telling us (in Gaudium et Spes) that the Church of Christ and of the Apostles subsistit in, is found in the Catholic Church. There is consequently no strict identification, that is exclusive, between the Church of Christ and the “Roman” Church. Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-catholic christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it. [emphasis added][9]
Lionel: There is nothing in Gaudium e Spes to contradict A. If non Catholic Christians are members of the Mystical Body we do not know of any case who has been saved as such. If it is  assumed  that there are personally known non Catholic Christians who are saved without being formal members of the Church then we could call this statement B. B would refer to explicit cases known in the present times. So B would be an exception to A.This would be irrational. Since Congar could not have known any one saved outside the Church. If there was such a case it would only be known to God.So his reasoning was faulty.
In fact Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis, teaches that the unique Church of Christ is (est) the Catholic Church.
Lionel: Yes. It is in agreement with A in Vatican Council II (AG 7).
Lumen Gentium, on the other hand, changes the est to subsistit because it no longer identifies (est) the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. This is to say that the Church founded by Christ exists in the catholic Church, without excluding the other “separated churches.” (The conciliar magisterium uses capital C for the “separated Churches”)
In short, the Mystical Body of Christ has a greater extension than that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Lionel: This is an inference. The text does not state this. Pope Benedict XVI also issued a document clarifying this point.The document was traditional.
And why do they assert this? It is simple: just as each man is divinized by the very fact that the Word became incarnate, it is inconceivable that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body of Christ, but as well the sects and all men are united in an indissoluble manner to Christ and form a part of His Mystical Body. (Cf. John Paul II, Speech to the Roman Curia, December, 1986: “The Church as Symbol of the Unity of the Human Race”)
Lionel: This would be an inference in which B would be an exception to A. 
Correct Interpretation of“Subsists in”
But here it may be objected that this interpretation of “subsistit in” is factious and extremist, and that, ultimately, such a phrase could be interpreted in an orthodox way by seeing it “in the light of tradition.” The very “conciliar magisterium,” however, taken as a whole, gives us the “authentic” interpretation of the phrase.
Lumen Gentium continues:
Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible confines [that is, outside the Catholic Church]. Since these are gifts proper to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity. (no. 7) [emphasis added]
Lionel:
We do not know anyone saved with 'elements of sanctification and of truth'(LG 8) and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So LG 8 is not an exception to A.
If it is assumed that these cases are known to us in the present times, to be explicit and obvious exceptions to the dogma, then this would be irrational and a falsehood.Then B would be an exception to A.
Yet this is implied by the sedevacantist writer.
 
This means that elements of truth and holiness, proper to the Church of Christ, exist also outside the Roman Church, that is, they subsist in her, but do not coincide with her. These elements are found in the Catholic Church as they are found in sects, as they are found in every man united to Christ by the very fact of the Incarnation!
Lionel:
If there are such elements it could be accepted as something theoretical, de jure, known only to God.So they would not be exceptions or relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors etc. B would not be an exception to A.
 
John Paul II himself intervened to further explain Gaudium et Spes on May 29, 1982 in Canterbury, where he gave a speech in which he said:
The Church of our time is the Church which participates in a particular manner in the prayer of Christ for unity...The promise of Christ fills us with confidence in the power with which the Holy Spirit will heal every division introduced into the Church in the course of the centuries since Pentecost.
Lionel: Yes we seek unity with an ecumenism of return. Ut Unum Sint calls for our separated brethren to be united in the Catholic Church under the pope who represents St. Peter.
As you can see, for the conciliar “magisterium”the Church of Christ is not one (i.e., the Catholic Church), but is divided and subsists or is found in the various sects and in every man and therefore also in the Catholic Church.
Lionel:
As you can see for the writer B is an exception to A.So he interprets Vatican Council II with this irrationality.
He does not know any one in the present times saved with 'elements of sanctification and of truth'. So how can LG 8 be an exception to Tradition for him? Yet it is!
-Lionel Andrades







Vatican Council II (UR ,DH) would contradict Mortalium Animos, Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors only if B

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/vatican-council-ii-ur-dh-would.htmls an exception to A




 

Vatican Council II (UR ,DH) would contradict Mortalium Animos, Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors only if B is an exception to A

Comment on Twitter:
V.gr., U.R. and D.H. contradict "Mortalium Animos" and "Quanta Cura-Syllabus"; they oppose and deny each other per diametrum
Immagine correlata
Lionel:
Vatican Council II (UR and DH) would contradict Mortalium Animos, Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors only if B is an exception to A.1

For me B is not an exception to A. There can be no text in Unitatis Redintegratio  or Dignitatis Humanae to contradict the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or other traditional teachings.2
 
This mistake is made by the sedevacantist and traditionalist websites.Since they  assume B is an exception to A. So Vatican Council II would contradict Tradition and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There would be explicit, known exceptions to the dogma in the present times due to the irrational reasoning.The fault is not with the Council but with the irrational premise and inference used.Instead of defending Feeneyism, which is traditional,  they are supporting irrational and heretical Marchettiism.
-Lionel Andrades


1.


2.


Vatican Council II says outside the Church there is no salvation and is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors, Mystici Corporis,Quanto Conficiamus etc.
 

No text in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore or the Council of Trent says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/no-text-in-quanto-conficiamur-moerore.html