Saturday, November 26, 2011

CONFUSION OVER THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

Cardinal Richard J.Cushing issued a decree against Fr.Leonard Feeney stating that because of 'grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church'… (April 18, 1949).

Grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church ?

What offense did he commit?

Then in 1953 the Holy Office decree states ‘The Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching…the object of its special care and attention…'

Fr.Leonard Feeney’s teaching ? What was Fr.Feeney’s teaching which were ‘against the laws of the Catholic Church’.

Where is the text of this heretical teaching ?

No where!! It is unamed. A mystery.

The decree refers to ‘the dogma’. There are three defined dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. All three agree with Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The three dogmas http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation on extra ecclesiam nulla salus state as does Fr.Leonard Feeney that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation i.e every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

They do not mention any exceptions as the baptism of desire etc since it is known that they are always implicit and not exceptions to the dogma. This was also Fr. Leonard Feeney's teaching.

So how could he be excommunicated for heresy ?

The Letter of the Holy Office does not specifically say that he was excommunicated for heresy it mentions disobedience. One has to assume that he was excommunicated for heresy.

When the Archbishop implies that there are visible cases of non Catholics who are saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and this is a contradiction to the dogma and Fr.Leonard  Feeney one has to assume that this is ecclesiastical heresy. The Letter does not mention it.-Lionel Andrades

REMEMBER THAT THE REPORT BY FR.WILLIAM MOST ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS NOT THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH: IT CONTAINS ERRORS AND HERESY

I was trying to explain to a Catholic religious yesterday that the report allegedly that of the late Fr.William Most was not the official teaching of the Church it contains errors and heresy. It contradicts magisterial documents and is a calumny of a priest Leonard Feeney of Boston.(1)

What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell…Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus. Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance. TRAGIC ERRORS OF LEONARD FEENEY by Fr. William Most -
Fr.William Most indicates that the unbaptized in the Western hemisphere before the arrival of Columbas were all saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. Being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is the ordinary means of salvation for him, or the writer of this report. Also, Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (LG14, AG 7) was not the ordinary means of salvation for the Native Americans before the missionaries arrived there.LG 16 is not the ordinary means of salvation?!

Is this not rejecting the Nicene Creed in which we pray ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.’ The baptism of water is needed to forgive Original Sin, the stain of Adam. Through baptism, given to adults with Catholic Faith, we accept Jesus’ Sacrifice and salvation from Hell.

Fr.William Most mentions that the Church teaches that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire implying that this contradicts the dogma. Where is the Church document, which says those saved in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us and so contradict the dogma?

Redemptoris Missio n.55 says it must be remembered in inter religious dialogue that the Catholic Church is the 'ordinary means' of salvation. So it is not paganism and non Catholic religions as the report would affirm. This is a denial of a basic Catholic teaching.

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Church Councils, popes and saints agree with Fr.Leonard Feeney. Yet this report implies invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicitly known and so exceptions to the dogma.Then the report falsely claims that the priest Leonard Feeney was in error for denying a teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions those who can be saved ‘in certain circumstances’ with the baptism of desire. It does not say that this contradicts ‘the dogma’ or ‘the infallible teaching’ to which the Letter also refers. The report interprets the popes and Church Fathers as referring to those saved in general with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 referred to 'the dogma', the infallible teaching'. The dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence tells us that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church. The dogma does not mention explicit baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. So how could Fr. Feeney be in error for saying the same thing as the dogma ?

There is no Church document which says invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are defacto known to us in personal cases. Neither does any Magisterial text claim that these are ‘exceptions’ to the dogma.Yet this is suggested by the report.

If the baptism of desire was not dejure, accepted only in principle, and if instead it was de facto and known to us, in personal cases, then the Letter of the Holy Office would contradict itself.This is what the report suggests.It means Pope Pius XII says every one de facto needs to enter the Church (as mentioned in 'the dogma' ) but some people can also be defacto saved with the baptism of desire etc 'in certain circumstances'(Letter of the Holy Office).

De facto every non Catholic needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no exceptions.( LG 14, AG 7, Cantate Domino, Dominus Iesus 20, CCC 845, 846 etc).

Since invincible ignorance is implicit, we accept it only in principle (de jure). It is not an exception to the dogma.It is a possibility known to God but not an exception to the dogma. For Fr.William Most these are exceptions.

The report says Fr.Leonard Feeney was old so out of pity the excommunication was lifted. This is false. It can be seen from the report by Peter Vere Canon Lawyer who spoke to the priest who initiated the lifting of the excommunication. Fr. Leonard Feeney was not required to recant.

Where does Fr.William Most mention that there is a dejure-defacto pattern in magisterial texts ? Did he notice it?He did not use a dejure-defacto analysis of magisterial texts including the Letter of the Holy Office ?

Neither did he mention the Principle of Non Contradiction when interpreting the Church Fathers , the Letter of the Holy Office or Vatican Council II ? His report is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.

He never considered that Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits at Boston College were in heresy for suggesting that there was an explicitly known baptism of desire and it contradicted an ‘infallible statement’ ?

He does not mention how a visible baptism of desire can be an exception to a defined dogma as he suggests ?Without the defacto-dejure analysis there is ambiguity in this report.

The report fails to mention that Fr.Leonard Feeney was not in heresy and yet the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing issued a decree against him and St. Benedict Center .The Letter of the Holy Office no where says he was excommunicated for heresy. One has to assume, imply and believe it was for heresy.

The report indicates that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma as Fr.Leonard Feeney understood it and as it is expressed by the communites of Fr. Leonard Feeney today who are recognized by the Catholic Church. Some have been granted canonical status in the diocese of Worcester,USA. They hold the same interpretation on the dogma extra eclesiam nulla salus as did Fr.Leonard Feeney.
-Lionel Andrades

1.


http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt