Monday, May 29, 2017

Present magisterium is Cushingite interprets magisterial documents with an irrational premise : manifest heresy for 16th century magisterium

Image result for Photo of Peter Vere Canon Lawyer
Dear ...,
     We, at ... had been led astray from the pulpit back in January 2016, perhaps through ignorance, perhaps through maliciousness, or possibly an over zealousness for his liberal point of view... to that I cannot say, and, I truly do not care of his motives. I leave that for God to judge.  I do know that much damage was done to the ancient Catholic Faith and to the plain teachings of the Sacred Texts, specifically, the very words of Christ. What I want to deal with here, are the objective, unemotional facts of the matter, and, with some authority above just mere heresay, but rather from a well respected canon lawyer.  
     We were told, from the pulpit, that the strict interpretation of EENS of what was termed "Feeneyism" was condemned and even "heretical".   We were told, shockingly, that those who do not believe in baptism of desire and baptism of blood will not see heaven. This was, no doubt, scandalous, as the Church has not only never condemned the strict interpretation, which states that BoD is a mere theological opinion held by some, but the Church, moreover, has never in it's history defined as an infallibly dogmatic statement this opinion called (erroneously) baptism of blood.
     So, in order to help correct the scandal and to help bring about a healing between the two factions in ... I offer to all this letter written by Pete Vere, a very well respected canon lawyer on the subject.  I will also add, that Mr. Vere is not an adherent of the strict interpretation of EENS, but rather, that he, himsrlf does indeed hold to these opinions of BoD/BoB, so I have chosen an authority that is not biased towards the strict interpretation of EENS.(Lionel : He's a Cushingite. Peter Vere assumes BOD/BOB and I.I (invincible ignorance) refer to visible and known cases in the present times. So they become exceptions to the 'strict intepretation' of EENS.At the onset he has made a mistake.) So, it is only wise, prudent, and necessary to get our facts straight on such an important subject.
   And now, the letter from Mr. Vere....
Image result for Photo of Peter Vere Canon Lawyer
Peter J. Vere, JCL
Sault Ste. Marie, Canada

Brother Andre Marie, M.I.C.M.
Saint Benedict Center
Post Office Box 627
Richmond, New Hampshire 03470

Feast of St. Mary Magdalene de Pazzi
Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Dear Brother Andre Marie,
     I hope this letter finds you and the other brothers well. Allow me to apologize for taking my time
in responding to your last letter. I wanted to be thorough in my response - especially since you
have asked if my response might be made public, of which I have no objection. Please note that
while I do not speak on behalf of the Church in an official capacity - given that I do not hold
office with a tribunal or ecclesiastical entity that has been asked to investigate this question -
what follows is my professional opinion as a canon lawyer.

     To recap our last exchange, you wrote: “I'm wondering if you are able to put in writing
something testifying to the lawfulness of holding Father Feeney's position as a Catholic in good
standing with the Church. Back in January, you agreed to do this. Again, I'm not asking you to
vouch for our canonical situation here in the Manchester Diocese; I'm simply asking for the
expert opinion of a canon lawyer on the larger question.”
Lionel: We can interpret EENS with Cushingism, as does the SSPX.Or we can choose Feeneyism, like the St. Benedict Centers. 
Cushingites assume BOD/BOB/I.I refer to physically visible cases without the baptism of desire.Then they infer that these 'visible' cases are examples of salvation outside the Church. So they become exceptions to EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
For me, (and not necessarily the St. Benedict Centers since they have not endorsed what I write),Feeneyites assumes BOD/BOB/I.I refer to physically invisible cases in the present times.So they are not examples of salvation outside the Church. They are not exceptions, to Feeneyite EENS, as it was interpreted over the centuries.Invisible cases cannot be exceptions. Zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS said John Martignoni,the U.S apologist.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to EENS said Fr. Stefano Visintin osb, the former Dean of Theology and present Vice Rector at the Pontifical University of St. Anselm, Rome.

     To begin, as you point out, the question concerning your canonical status with the Diocese of
Manchester is separate from the question concerning Fr. Feeney’s status as one who died in full
communion with Rome, as well as the status of his spiritual descendants who hold to his same
position. Before we proceed to the larger question, I would just like to assure you of our family
prayers that in God’s time the question of your canonical status resolve itself favourably. Should
you require my assistance at that time, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Lionel: The Bishops and their Curia in the  dioceses of Manchester, Worcester and Los Angeles where communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney live, interpret the dogma EENS with Cushingism.They reject Feeneyite EENS. For the bishops, invisible- for -us BOD/BOB/I.I are physically visible to be relevant and also exceptions to EENS.The bishops there  have also changed our understanding of the Nicene Creed. It is now 'I believe in three or more known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water'.They also re-interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Cushigism instead of the alternative rational option.

     Having said that, let us move to the larger question. It is clear from the Catechism of the
Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated by Pope John Paul II that the Church currently promotes a
less exclusive understanding of the dogma “Outside the Church no salvation” (EENS) as well as
the effects of desire for baptism (BOD) and pre-baptismal martyrdom for the faith (BOB). 
Lionel: This is true only if the reader assumes invisible cases are visible.If a Catholic avoids this premise, the Catechism can be interpreted in harmony with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the past .It was based on the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.

Lest I be accused of bias in my canonical opinion, I want to note up-front that I personally accept the
teaching on these issues outlined in the CCC.
Lionel: He means he accepts the irrational premise and is politically correct with the USCCB and the Left.He will be now recognised as a Canon Lawyer in good standing with the Church.He will not be considered by the liberal Vatican Curia and the U.S bishops to be schismatic or in an irregular situation. 

     However, that is a debate for another time. The question currently before us is the following:
What of those, like the spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney, who hold to a more restrictive
understanding on these issues? Are they Catholics in good standing with the Church?
Lionel: Yes.They are in agreement with the Church Councils, popes and saints of the past who did not assume invisible cases were visible and then infer, that these 'visible cases' were exceptions to traditional EENS.If they would not be in good standing then logically neither would be the popes and Church Councils over the centuries.

The answer is yes for a number of reasons:
1) There is no question Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI lifted Father’s excommunication while Father was still alive, and there is no evidence that Father recanted his understanding of EENS, BOB, or BOD. The actual lifting of Father’s excommunication was executed by Fr. Richard Shmaruk, a priest of the Boston Archdiocese, on behalf of Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester. While visiting Boston about ten years ago, I spoke with Fr. Shmaruk and he personally corroborated the events that led to him reconciling Fr.Feeney with the Church.

     On pages 259 to 262 of his book They Fought the Good Fight, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott diligently chronicles the reconciliation of Fr. Feeney, as well as the subsequent reconciliation of several of Father’s spiritual descendants. Brother Sennott quotes from two respectable Catholic news sources (The Advocate and the Catholic Free Press). I have independently confirmed the quotations and context of the primary sources.

     Brother Sennottt also notes that Father’s memorial mass was celebrated by Bishop Bernard Flanagan in the Cathedral of St. Paul, Worcester. This would have given rise to scandal had Father not been fully reconciled with the Church. Br. Sennott’s book received an imprimi potest from Bishop Timothy Harrington of the Diocese of Worcester, meaning the book is free from doctrinal or moral error. Thus unless one is willing to declare oneself sedevacantist or sedeprivationist, the evidence is overwhelming that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church without recanting his position.
Lionel: However Bishop Bernard Flanagan, Fr.Richard Schmaruk and the ecclesiastics at Boston were using an irrational premise to change the meaning of the dogma EENS. For  the magisterium of the 16th century, for example, this would be manifest heresy. They have also changed the understanding of the Nicene Creed. This is first class heresy.This is magisterial heresy.
This same heresy is supported by Cardinal Muller and the two popes. On May 25,2017 in an interview with Raymond Arroyo,Cardinal Muller indicated that the SSPX and all Catholics would have to interpret magisterial documents with the irrational premise.In this way Vatican Council II would be a rupture with Tradition.The Jewish Left rabbis will not protest.

Image result for Photo of Peter Vere Canon Lawyer

2) Most of Fr. Feeney’s spiritual descendants have been reconciled with the Church without
having to renounce or recant their interpretation of BOB, BOD, or EENS. This was the case with those who reconciled in 1974 and would go on to found St. Benedict Abbey in Still River, as well as the sisters of St. Anne’s House in Still River who reconciled in 1988, and most recently with St. Benedict Centre in Still River who reconciled under Br. Thomas Augustine, MICM.
Regarding the last group, I should note they had achieved a sacramental reconciliation long
before their juridical reconciliation. This was the subject of the first paper I ever wrote as a
young licentiate student in canon law. While researching this paper in 1997, I visited the various communities descended from Fr. Feeney and the Harvard student movement, noting with interest how despite no formal reconciliation at the time, Br. Thomas’s community had an in-residence chaplain appointed by the Bishop of Worcester. I also noted with interest that the Bishop visited the community regularly, and that he also confirmed the community’s children. In reading canon 844, sacraments should only be shared with non-Catholics under the most strict and extenuating of circumstances. It is clear, that in keeping with canon 213, the Diocese of Worcester was ensuring for the pastoral and sacramental care of Brother Thomas’s community as if they were Catholics.

     It was similarly clear from talking to Br. Thomas Augustine, as it was from talking to Mother Theresa next door at St. Anne’s House, that each of these communities still held the same interpretation of BOB, BOD and EENS as Fr. Feeney.

     With regards to the 1988 reconciliation of Mother Theresa, MICM and the sisters of St. Anne’s House in Still River, Fr. Lawrence A. Deery, JCL, at the time the Diocese of Worcester’s Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs and acting in his official capacity, wrote the following: “1) The Sisters were asked to ‘understand’ the letter of the then Holy Office dated 8 August 1949. They were not asked to ‘accept’ its contents.
Lionel: The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is Cushingite.It mistakes invisible baptism of desire as being visible and then infers that it is an exception to the dogma EENS as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center. This is an objective error. There can be no practical exceptions to the dogma EENS unless we can see people in Heaven or know of people on earth who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
So the Letter is heretical when it states that :-
 Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...

 2) The Sisters were asked to make to make a Profession of Faith.
Lionel: If the Profession of Faith was made with the Nicene Creed then again there are problems.The Cushingite interpretation is heretical.Again we have the common magisterial heresy.

 Nothing else was required [...] In our discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views. 
Lionel: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith accomodated  the 'liberal view' based on the false premise. With the false premise there is a New Theology. This is the New Theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II.
The New Theology is not fixed. If the irrational premise is avoided we are back to the old theology, the old ecclesiology of the Church. Then the same Vatican Council II, can be be interpreted in harmony with the dogma EENS as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center of his time.

Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings.” Need I remind you that the man who was Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of this consultation is now Pope Benedict XVI, the Church’s Supreme Pontiff?
Lionel: Pope Benedict was also a Cushingite.So he was interpreting Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture and wanted the SSPX and the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney to do the same.On March 2016 he clarified that the SBC position on EENS was not that of the Cushingite magisterium.The SBC did not protest and show him his factual and objective error.

3) In 1988, Mr. John Loughnan, a layman from Australia who happens to be a friend of mine,
wrote the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) requesting clarification on several
controversies surrounding the SSPX. Mr. Loughnan also inquired as to the status within the
Church of Fr. Feeney’s followers.

     Concerning this last question, Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary of the PCED, replied to Mr.
Loughnan as follows in N. 343/98 dated 27 October 1998: “The question of the doctrine held by
the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church
and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not
judge it opportune to enter into this question.”
Lionel: Msgr.Camille Perl, like Archbishop Guido Pozzo used the  irrational premise to interpret EENS, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. For PCED(Ecclesia Dei) BOD/BOB/I.I refer to visible cases without the baptism of water, so there is salvation outside the Church.Since there is salvation outside the Church for them, doctrine has changed on exclusive salvation.It is no more exclusivist. Doctrine has changed on Catholic Mission.It is no more based on exclusive salvation in the Church.So all non Catholics do not need to convert into the Church as members in 2017.There is no more an ecumenism of return since there is known salvation outside the Church.We now can have the Anonymous Christian of Rahner or as Ratzinger's CCC 846 indicates, all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.
There is no more the need for  the non separation of Church and state and to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King.Since there is known salvation outside the Church, according to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 people do not need to be members of the Church to avoid Hell.
     While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died
in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his
same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly
within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to
oversee the reconciliation and well-being of traditionalists within the Church.

     On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual
descendants may be controversial, 
Lionel: The  position of the magisterium is controversial and needs to be corrected. Traditional theology cannot be changed with an irrational premise.Yet they have done this.
This reasoning cannot be pased off  as Catholic philosophy. It is deception.
We  have a doctrinal  innovation in the Church supported by a corrupt magisterium.
With a New Theology knew doctrines are created.Eample, Lumen Gentium 14 suggests not every one in general needs to be a member of the Church for salvation but only those who know about Jesus and the Church , and who do not enter. In other words, only those who are not in invincible ignorance.Those who are in invincible ignorance were exceptions to EENS for the some of the cardinals at Vatican Council II.After all invincible ignorance (I.I) refers to a known case of someone saved outside the Church, which are explicit exceptions to Feeneyite EENS!!

holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of
the Catholic Church.
Lionel: The  magisterium holds the irrational position and no one among them are excommunicated.They have to pretend that the traditionalists and sedevacantists are in heresy for not interpreting magisterial documents with the false premise, and then accepting the conclusion.

 In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical
practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the
good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of EENS, BOB and BOD.
Lionel:  The present liberal and pro-Masonic magisterium  tolerates them, in as much, as she has to tolerate St. Francis, Xavier, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Thomas Aquinas, St.Augustine , St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, St. Maximilliam Kolbe....

Pax Christi,
Pete Vere
Pete Vere, JCL
cc: Brother Matthew, MICM
St. Benedict Centre, Still River

No comments: