Tuesday, May 1, 2012

IF THEY EXCOMMUNICATED FR.LEONARD FEENEY FOR SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THEN THEY MADE A MISTAKE.THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA.

An injustice was done to the priest and St.Benedict Center

The secular media and the liberals say Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not say it was for heresy but for disobedience.Pope Pius XII in the Letter supported Fr.Leonad Feeney on doctrine.He was excommunicated for disobedience. He refused to go to Rome when summoned.He was also being opposed by the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney when it referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’statement.(1) The text of the dogma is a literal interpretation of the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma does not mention any explicit exception. So this was exactly what was taught by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.

Some passages in the Letter however are critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.(2) So if it was assumed that the baptism of desire etc was an explicit exception to the dogma then they were mistaken.There are no known cases of people saved with the baptism of desire etc. To claim so would be an objective,factual oversight.

The Letter of the Holy Office does not directly claim that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are explicit exceptions to the dogma or that we can know these cases. This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston and the media which supported him.

The Letter which was addresed to the Archbishop had technical irregularities and so could also have been a bishop-to-bishop document.It was hastily placed in the Denzinger by the liberals.

The communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney today, recognized by the Catholic Church, know there are no exceptions to the dogma. This is common sense.

So if Fr.Leonard Feeney rejected the baptism of desire etc for whatever reason it is irrelevant. The baptism of desire etc is not issue with reference to the dogma.

For centuries the Church upheld the literal interpretation of the dogma alongwith implicit baptism of desire known ,of course, only to God.

It was Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits who created this false issue, that of the visible- to- us baptism of desire.

So we are back to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance out of the way, as exceptions.

Jesus said those who do not believe will be condemned (Mk .16:16) and that every one needs the baptism of water for salvation. The baptism of water is given to adults in a community,the Church, the only Church Jesus founded (John 3:5) outside of which there is no salvation.

So we proclaim the Good News that Jesus saves in only one Church.We do not proclaim Jesus without the Church as is being done now.

Every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and not just those ‘who know’ about Jesus and the Church.We do not know anyone saved in invincible ignorance.So we cannot make the distinction between those who know and those who do not know. Anyway we wouldn’t know the difference since only Jesus can judge.

We also cannot say that there are some people in 2012 who will be saved without the baptism of water and who will remain with Original Sin on their soul.We don’t know any such exception.

It means all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics, including Christians communities and churches, are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.God the Father wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church (CCC 845) the Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the flood.(CCC 845 , St.Thomas Aquinas etc).Salvation is available for all but to receive it all need to enter the Church.(Dominus Iesus 20).

All who are saved are saved through Jesus and Church (CCC 846) which does not negate all needing to enter the Church, for salvation,  as 'through a door' (CCC 846, AG 7).

So now we can proclaim the literal interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation and also implicit baptism of desire, it is no more having to choose between the one and the other. –Lionel Andrades

1.
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.-Letter of the Holy Office (emphasis added)

2.
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.

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.

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.

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.


Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind 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 as necessary for salvation.