Thursday, October 22, 2015

Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for not accepting the error which emerged from the Baltimore Catechism

traditionalmass.org | Traditional Latin Mass Resources

Was Fr. Feeney's Excommunication Doubtful?
Rev. Anthony Cekada
Q. In a letter to the editor of Latin Mass magazine (November–December 1994), Gary Potter stated that the Holy Office’s 13 February 1953 decree excommunicating the Rev. Leonard Feeney was dubious because it was“signed by no one except a mere Vatican notary.” I have also heard this argument from other supporters of Fr. Feeney. Is there anything to it?
A. The Holy Office decree in question (Acta Apostolicae Sedis xxxxv, 100) reads as follows:
Decree
The Priest Leonard Feeneyis 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
Lionel:
So he was excommunicated for not accepting the error which emerged from the Baltimore Catechism.He refused to say that the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood was explicit. He also refused to claim that these 'explicit' cases were exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
For the Holy Office(CDF 1949) and the Archdiocese of Boston these cases were explicit and so were exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.They made a factual mistake. They were irrational.
They excommunicated him for not accepting this irrationality and heresy. This was contemporary Magisterial heresy.
He did not personally know of any cases of persons saved outside the Church and neither did the Magisterium. Yet it was assumed there was salvation outside the Church even though there was no historical precedent.
Another supporter of Father Feeney, Thomas Mary Sennott, in his book They Fought the Good Fight, likewise hints that the effect of the decree was open to question:
It is to be noted that this document does not contain the seal of the Holy Office, nor is it signed by Cardinal Pizzardo or the Holy Father. The only signature is that of a notary public. (256)
For an American, the phrase “notary public” summons up the image of the frizzy-haired, gum-chewing 18-year-old girl down at the bank who puts her notary stamp on your fishing license.
The reality here is quite a bit different. In legal systems based on Roman law, a“notary” is a type of lawyer. He does not merely witness signatures; he is trained and authorized to draw up complex legal documents. In the Curia, certain Notaries had the right to function in ceremonial positions of honor at the Solemn Papal Mass. (when none of them, presumably, chewed gum…)
The form of the decree against Fr. Feeney, in fact, was an oraculum vivae vocis — a legal act the pope or a Roman congregation first gives orally in an audience or a Plenary Congregation. Such an act is taken down in writing by one of the curial officials present, who afterwards puts it into an appropriate legal form.
The act is then promulgated (as a decree, decision, declaration, etc.) under the signature of a Notary, who is giving official written testimony of what he has heard in the audience or congregation. His testimony is given full faith and credit, and the act is law.
One can find a treatment of this form of legislation in various commentaries on the Code of Canon Law.
Theoraculum vivae vocis is a standard form for many Roman decrees, including excommunications. For examples, see Acta Apostolicae Sedis, xii (1920), 37; xiv (1922), 379–380; xxii (1930), 517–520.
The decree excommunicating Fr. Feeney thus followed the proper legal form. The technical defects his followers allege against it on these grounds are non-existent.
Lionel:
Fr. Anthony Cekada and Bishop Donald Sanborn interpret Vatican Council II also with the same irrationality as the CDF today. Since the baptism of desire and blood are explicit for them, they assume LG 16, LG 8 etc are also explicit in the present times and so are exceptions to the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They would have to be visible to be exceptions.So they say there are exceptions to the old interpretation of the dogma.
(Sacerdotium14, Spring 1995).
 

Bishop Donald Sanborn like Bishop Fellay has made the same mistake : so have Reuters and AP correspondents

October 20, 2015
Development of an error in the Catholic Church
Related image
Related image
From the Baltimore Catechism to Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) we can see the development of a new doctrine, an irrationality, to negate the centuries old dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), defined by three Church Councils.With the development of the irrationality in magisterial documents, the old ecclesiology was discarded.
BALTIMORE CATECHISM
321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.
322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)
323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?
An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation. - Baptism. Lesson 24 from the Baltimore Cathechism
I have mentioned in a previous blog post 1 that there are no physical cases of the baptism of desire and blood, they cannot be known and seen on earth, as we see the baptism of water. The baptism of water can be given.It can be repeated.

The baptism of desire and blood cannot be given and repeated and we do not know of any such case personally.So they are not exceptions to all needing the baptism of water to avoid Hell.
These cases are not relevant to all needing the baptism of water, the necessity of the baptism of water for salvation. So they should not have been placed in this section of the Baltimore Catechism.
They do not contradict the following passages from the same Catechism.

315. What is Baptism?
Baptism is the sacrament that gives our souls the new life of sanctifying grace by which we become children of God and heirs of heaven.
Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

316. What sins does Baptism take away?

Baptism takes away original sin; and also actual sin and all the punishment due to them, if the person baptized be guilty of any actual sins and truly sorry for them.
Get up and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)

317. What are the effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism?

The effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism are that we become members of the Church, subject to its laws, and capable of receiving other sacraments.

320. Why is Baptism necessary for the salvation of all men?

Baptism is necessary for the salvation of all men because Christ has said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Now they who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41) 2

We must remember that being saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases for us.Since they are not objectively seen they do not contradict the Baltiomore Catechism when it states ' Baptism is necessary for the salvation of all men...'.
It is necessary for all with no exceptions.
_________________________________
Related imageCATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. -Catechism of Pope Pius X, Rome 1905
Again we must note, I repeat, that being saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases for us .There should have been no reference to it here.The same errror of the Baltimore Catechism has been placed in the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
Related image
Since 29 Q does not refer to an explicit, objectively seen case, it does not contradict 27Q which states ,' No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church'.
__________________

 
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
The Baltimore Catechism error was accepted by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani to the Archbishop of Boston and which was made public some three years after it was issued.
The first part of the Letter affirms the dogma and the necessity of the baptism of water.I refer to it as A.
A
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.
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).
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.

The second part of the Letter mentions exceptions to the first part.I refer to these passages as B and they are in red.The Letter contradicts itself.

B
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct...
We must remember that being saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases for us.So B does not contradict A.The Letter made a mistake.
Since B does not refer to explicit, objectively seen cases it cannot contradict A.There can be no known exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.

When it states ' no one will be saved who, knowing...' it assumes those saved in invincible ignorance refer to known cases in our reality, in the present times. They are saved in their ignorance. For the 1949 Magisterium they are not culpable.They are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water.On the other hand those who 'know', who are not in inculpable ignorance and who are seen and known in the present times, for the Magisterium , were on the way to Hell.This is irrational. Since these cases would be known only to God.
We cannot judge who knows or does not know and will be saved. They are zero cases in our reality. So they are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma.This is a new doctrine which was 'developed' in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
This error was placed in Vatican Council II (LG 14)
_________________

Related image
VATICAN COUNCIL II
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
A
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.
B
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him

Again I repeat being saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases for us.So B does not contradict A.
B is superflous.
It should not have been placed in Vatican Council II.
The same mistake is made in Lumen Gentium 14.
The error in Vatican Council II is carried over from the Baltimore Catechism because B was supposed to be explicit.
However we can correct the error in future. Avoid it in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.I have done it numerous times on this blog.
I know that B is always invisible and not known to us. So the confusing text is there in the Magisterial documents but it does not contradict the traditional teaching on the necessity of the baptism of water for all. It is not confusing if B is considered invisible for us. It would then also not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology.
-Lionel Andrades
1
 
____________________________________
 
 
The sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn who has placed material on the website of the Most Holy Family Monastery, Fl.,USA 1 has made the same error as Bishop Bernard Fellay, in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors 2.
They were not aware of the irrationality in the Baltimore Catechism,and neither were the correspondents of Reuters and the Associated Press(AP) 3
 
Even Fr. Anthony Cekada a professor at the sedevacantist seminary assumes the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood refer to explicit cases.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada have had their religious formation under Archbishop Lefebvre who overlooked the error in the Baltimore Catechism and condoned it in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. He was not aware of the Magisterial error and so interpreted Vatican Council II with Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8 etc considered visible instead of invisible.
Vatican Council II obviously emerged heretical and so he rejected it.

 
Cardinal Ratzinger was not aware of the magisterial heresy in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and so interpreted Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc being objectively known.This was the only interpretation of Vatican Council II he knew. Archbishop Lefebvre too was not aware of the alternative. So he was excommunicated, for not accepting the heretical version of the Council, interpreted with LG 16 being objectively visible.
Until today the contemporary Magisterium, like the traditionalists, sedevacantists and secular media, interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition by not being aware that LG 16, LG 8 , UR 3 etc refer to invisible for us cases and so they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and the old ecclesiology on other religions and ecumenism.
For over 50 years Vatican Council II is being reported as a break with Tradition, in particular, with  the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
-Lionel Andrades 
 
1
Sedevacantist seminary repeats the error of the Baltimore Catechism
3
No denial from Phillip Pullela and Nicole Winfield

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/no-denial-from-phillip-pullela-and.html

Phillip Pullella and Nicole Winfield have been interpreting Vatican Council II with the Baltimore Catechism error  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/phillip-pullella-and-nicole-winfield.html

_________________________