Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was based on an objective mistake

Aug 29, 2014 at 12:53am
Patman Avatar



Post by Patman on Aug 29, 2014 at 12:53am

Decree Excommunicating Leonard Feeney, 13 February 1953Prior to the excommunication, Feeney received the following summons to appear before the Holy Office from Cardinal Pizzardo on November 22, 1952.

The Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.
_____________________________________________________________________DECREE

THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.
Marius Crovini, Notary
AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100
If Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for not assuming that the baptism of desire was an exception to his traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then the Holy Office made a factual error.Since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be exceptions to the dogma since these cases are in Heaven.
How can those who are saved in Heaven also be explicit exceptions on earth to all needing the baptism of water for salvation?
It is a fact of life that we cannot see people in Heaven.So if the Holy Office inferred that we could see the dead, who were relevant to Fr.Leonard Feeney's traditional interpretation of the dogma, then the Holy Office and Pope Pius XII made a mistake.It was not only a mistake it was much more.It was heretical.
If the baptism of desire is an exception then it must be explicit. If it does not exist in our reality it is not an exception.
So the Holy Office was telling Fr.Leonard Feeney that he was wrong.Since for Pope Pius XII there was salvation outside the Catholic Church. There were known exceptions! They could meet someone who was saved or was going to be saved without the baptism of water!?.
There was no magisterial document prior to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ,which as a precedent, said that the baptism of desire was visible to us or that the baptism of desire was an exception to all needing the baptism of water. There is no such magisterial document.
In Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura etc there are only references to implicit desire, invincible ignorance etc.It  is not stated that these cases could be known in the present times by us humans, or that they contradict the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.
So if the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 had only mentioned implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance it would not be a problem. It would be traditional.However the Letter of the Holy Office goes further and assumes that these cases are explicit and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. This was a new doctrine. It is also heretical for it rejects the traditional interpretation of the dogma which Pope Pius XII called ' in infallible statement'(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).It changes the 'I believe in one baptism( baptism of water) for the forgiveness of sin'(Nicene Creed) to 'I believe in many baptisms which replace the baptism of water?
So if Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommuicated for doctrine it was an oversight of Pope Pius XII.
We can see the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XIII when it infers that  the baptism of desire etc are explicit and so are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This same error was used by Cardinal  Joseph Ratzinger,Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) 1 he says with reference to the baptism of  water, that God 'is not bound by his sacraments.' It is assumed that there are known exceptions to the dogma on salvation which says,according to CCC 1257, God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism.
Then surprisingly CCC 1258-1260 also says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are substitutes for the baptism of water.How can hypothetical cases be known substitutes for every one receiving the baptism of water in 2014.
 
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.(We do not know any defacto case for example in 2014, in Rome, who can be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So why mention it if such a case does not exist in our reality? Is Pope Pius XII implying that these cases are visible for us ?)  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).
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.(Again is it being implied that these, are personally known cases in the present times. These are visible in the flesh exceptions ? This is being inferred other wise why mention it?)

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.(This is a hypothetical, imaginary case.It is a probability. Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney).
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.(We do not know any case 'united to the Church by desire' who has been saved or is going to be saved. These are hypothetical cases. Pope Pius XII assumed that they were defacto, known cases ?)
-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
So the excommunication was a mistake. I say this not based on theology but on the knowledge that objectively we cannot see or know any exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no physical exceptions present.Neither can there be any in future.Since they are known only to God.
The same error is inferred in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. It is assumed,for example, that Lumen Gentium  16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is visible to us in real life. Since it is allegedly explicit for us,it is inferred to be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The same reasoning is used with NA 2,LG 8,UR 3 etc.Hypothetical cases are assumed to be objectively known.
So traditionalists  and sedevacantists (SSPX, FSSP,CMRI,MHFM etc) reject Vatican Council II  as a break with Tradition when this irrational premise is used.While liberals  accept Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition, while also using the same irrational inference.
The problem began during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.The excommunication was based on an objective mistake.
-Lionel Andrades
1
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

http://tedeum.boards.net/thread/18/excommunication-fr-leonard-feeney?page=1#scrollTo=71
http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3461680.0

No comments: