CDF(Holy Office) supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston in Letter of the Holy Office 1949

There is no document which says that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. It is not said in the Letter of the Holy Office (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.

The Letter does not specify when it is describing de facto or de jure what it calls the dogma.

Since it was a statement of the Magisterium the Letter had to be in harmony with Sacred Tradition.

I use the words de facto and de jure. I could also say at the level of theology and the intellect (de jure) as compared to the practical level, the level of personal contact, personal evangelisation (de facto).The words de jure(in principle) and de facto are used in the Introduction of Dominus Iesus.

The Letter states:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).

Comment: We are bound de jure. We implement it de facto.

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20). (Emphasis added)

Comment: We teach all nations, all people, de facto what He has commanded.

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

It is necessary de facto to be incorporated into the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ through the Baptism of water. It is necessary de facto for all people. This is the teaching of the dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Comment: Therefore no one will be saved; no one can be saved, who knowing about the Church (de jure) does not de facto enter it. This is  the teaching of Bro. Francis Maluf MICM and the St. Benedict Center.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

Comment: The Saviour commanded that all nations, all people should de facto enter the Catholic Church. This would mean all non Catholics in Boston then and now.

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. 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).(Emphasis added)

Comment: In certain circumstances( not the ordinary way), de jure, a person can be saved without the baptism of water. At the intellectual-theological level we can accept this. The person is saved de facto but the case is known only to God. So for humans it is always a de jure knowing.

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.

Comment: In certain circumstances; exceptionally, a person can be saved without the baptism of water. This is a de jure teaching. It is true theologically, when we speak and write about it.

De facto we do not know who specifically these people are.

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.

Comment: Those in invincible ignorance and other exceptions can be saved, de jure. De facto only God can judge specific cases.

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.

Comment: This is a de jure analysis.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Comment: The conditions for de facto membership in the Church are mentioned here.

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church,

Comment: Here he invites pagans and non Catholics to de facto enter the Catholic Church for salvation.

he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243).

Comment: He refers de jure to those members of the Catholic Church who are saved exceptionally. They are saved de facto, but known only to God. The ordinary means of salvation is having Catholic Faith and receiving the Baptism of water.

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).

Comment: This is a de jure analysis of the requirements for salvation among the exceptions e.g. those with implicit desire, perfect charity etc.Also it indicates that there are limitations to any desire or an implicit desire for salvation.

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire,

Comment: He de jure ‘reproves those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire’ and de facto not known to us.

and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).

Comment: He reproves all those who de jure ‘assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion’.

This part of the Letter referred to doctrine and the dogma.

Now begins the reference to disobedience and discipline.

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

Comment: Here is a criticism of those who claim that de facto there are exceptions to salvation and de jure there are no exceptions like an implicit desire. This is in keeping with Sacred Tradition. It is in accord with the dogma Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Based on information from the Archbishop he also assumes that this is the position of the St. Benedict Center. Time would prove otherwise.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28). Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Comment: The above paragraphs refer to disobedience of the St. Benedict Center to the Archbishop of Boston. They were needed to follow the doctrinal teachings of the Archbishop and the Jesuit Rector of Boston College. The Cardinal assumed the latter were faithful. Time would prove otherwise.

The excommunication would be lifted by the Vatican without the need for Fr. Feeney to change his teaching.

Two of the communities he founded would be accepted into the Catholic Church with canonical status and affirming the dogma.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Comment. The Cardinal is critical of the disobedience of Fr. Leonard Feeney to the Archbishop. The Cardinal has never personally met Fr.Leonard Feeney.. The confusion is largely based on the information given to him by the Archbishop, through opinions and articles.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Comment : An issue of disobedience to the Archbishop based on the information given to him.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind

Comment: He assumes that it is Fr. Feeney, who personally did not defend himself. Since Fr.Feeney believed that he was affirming the dogma, an infallible, ex cathedra teaching.

that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required asnecessary for salvation.

Comment: It is assumed here that Fr. Feeney was not faithful to the Holy Father and the Archbishop of Boston. Time would prove that they were in accord with the dogma. The newspapers reported that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on the dogma outside the church no salvation. There was no clarification from the Archbishop.

This Letter was public three years after it was received.

The Archbishops of Boston and many of the Jesuits ( even today) have rejected the Catholic teaching according to the Councils and the popes.

In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,

Your Excellency's most devoted. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.A. Ottaviani, Assessor.(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

Comment: Vatican Council II (1965) would affirm the Letter and say ‘all people’ need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. (Ad Gentes 7). All people at the de facto level. While Lumen Gentium 16 refers to the extraordinary way (de jure) (Ad Gentes 7, -de facto, Lumen Gentium 16-de jure)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church number 1257 on Baptism says the Church knows of no way to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. This is the general, ordinary means. However CCC also says God is not bound to the Sacraments.(Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water are needed de facto by all. However people can be saved without Baptism -de jure).

The Letter refers to this teaching as a dogma and not just a doctrine. The Councils and popes held an understanding of this dogma NOT as the Archbishop of Boston but - Fr. Leonard Feeney and Bro. Francis Maluf MICM.

The Letter was sent keeping Sacred Tradition in mind.

The first half of the Letter referred to the dogma and the second half to disobedience to the Bishop. The first part to doctrine and the second part to discipline.

________________________________________________________________