28. Heresy before Vatican II
To fully appreciate the Father Feeney controversy one must understand that the denial of the Faith that Father Feeney was combating was well in place in the years before Vatican II. Most people considering themselves to be “traditional Catholics” have the false impression that, “if we could only go back to what people believed in the 1950’s, everything would be fine.” No, it wouldn’t. Most of the priests and bishops in the 1940’s and 1950’s had already lost the Faith and had completely rejected the solemnly defined dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is simply a fact that heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation was being taught in most seminaries in the 1940’s and 50’s. In fact, the breakdown of the Faith began much earlier than the 1940’s or 50’s.
Our Lady of La Salette, France Rome
As I said earlier in this document, St. Anthony Mary Claret, the only canonized saint at the First Vatican Council, had a stroke because of the false doctrines that were being proposed even then, which never made their way into the council. The step-by-step dismantling of the Catholic Faith by Lucifer began, not in 1964, but in 1864, long before Vatican II. Let’s take a look at some examples of blatant heresy in pre-Vatican II books with Imprimaturs (i.e., the approval of a bishop).
1. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, “Church,” 1908, G. H. Joyce: “The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation)… It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition… Many are kept from the Church by ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy… Thus, even in the case in which God saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church’s actual graces… In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body.”[dlxxvi]
What we have here, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, in the year 1908, in a book with the Imprimatur of John Farley, the Archbishop of New York, is blatant heresy. The author, G.H. Joyce, completely rejects the dogma as it has been defined. He even employs the “Soul of the Church Heresy” which is completely heretical (as I showed in “The Soul of the Church Heresy” section). The defined dogma which declared that only those in the Catholic Church can be saved, has given way to the heresy that God saves men “apart from the Church.”
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900: “Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.”[dlxxvii]
But to these heretics, no longer does this dogma mean that outside the Church there is no salvation, but rather that non-Catholics are saved in their false religions but by the Catholic Church. The necessity of Catholic faith and unity for salvation has been utterly repudiated.
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life… You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation.”[dlxxviii]
And this proves that the dogma that those who die as non-Catholics cannot be saved was being denied publicly even as early as 1908.
2. My Catholic Faith, a Catechism by Bishop Louis LaRavoire, 1949: “Holy Mass may be offered for the living of whatever creed. It may be offered for departed Catholics. The priest may not offer Mass publicly for departed non-Catholics, but the persons hearing the Mass may do so.”[dlxxix]
Here we find more clear heresy in a catechism written by the Bishop of Krishnager, Louis LaRavoire. This Catechism is still promoted today by many so-called “traditional Catholics.” By permitting prayer for departed non-Catholics, Louis LaRavoire denies the dogma that all who depart life as non-Catholics are lost.
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”[dlxxx]
3. Baltimore Catechism No. 3, 1921, Imprimatur Archbishop Hayes of New York
Here we find blatant heresy in the Baltimore Catechism, imprimatured and published in 1921. The authors of this heretical catechism are bold enough to assert that salvation for a non-Catholic is not only possible, but dependent upon whether the non-Catholic “firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion.” So if you’re firmly convinced that Mormonism is the true religion, then you’ve got a good shot at salvation, according to the Baltimore Catechism; but if you’re not firmly convinced of this then your chances are less. This makes an absolute mockery of the dogma: one Lord, one faith and one baptism (Eph. 4:5).
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” (Athanasian Creed).[dlxxxi]
The words of Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos could have been written specifically to the authors of the Baltimore Catechism; and indeed they were addressed to other heretics in his day who proposed the same thing. Notice how far the Baltimore Catechism has come from the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, which Gregory XVI affirmed, which states that whoever wishes to be saved must hold the Catholic Faith. The authors of the Baltimore Catechism could not have, in their wildest imagination, pretended to believe in that dogmatic profession of faith.
The reader should also note that Pope Gregory XVI teaches that those who have never been Catholic are lost, as well as Catholics who leave the Church.
The Baltimore Catechism rejects the words of Jesus Christ, who declared that “he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). The revised edition of the Scriptures by the authors of the Baltimore Catechism would have to read: “he that believeth firmly in false religions shall not be condemned.”
4. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott, Imprimatur 1954, p. 310: “The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept, but also of means, as the comparison with the Ark
It’s a pity that the Catholic Church was stupid enough to define more than seven times that outside the Catholic Church no one at all is saved, because (as the “great” Ludwig Ott reveals) “those who are in point of fact outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.” It’s a shame that the Church didn’t possess this profound enlightenment, that it didn’t know that what it had been teaching “infallibly” for all of these years was actually just the opposite of the truth.
In truth, what Ludwig Ott says above is equivalent to declaring that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in Original Sin. There is no difference whatsoever. If the Church defines that outside the Church no one at all is saved (Pope Innocent III, etc.), and I assert that “those who are in point of fact outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation,” then I am doing the exact same thing as if I were to declare that the Virgin Mary was conceived in some sin, when the Church said she had no sin. I would be stating exactly the opposite of what the Church had infallibly defined, and this is precisely what Ludwig Ott does.
But shortly after explicitly denying the dogma that no one can be saved outside the Church, notice what Ludwig Ott says:
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 311: “It is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church.”[dlxxxiii]
“But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil” (Mt. 5:37). From one page to the next, Ludwig Ott contradicts himself on whether those who are outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation! He even uses the exact same verb – “achieve” – in both sentences, but with the opposite meaning from one to the next: 1) those “outside the Church can achieve salvation”; 2) “salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church.” His speech is not of God, but of the Devil. Black is white and white is black; good is evil and evil is good; truth is error and error is truth; salvation can be achieved outside the Church and salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church.
For the pre-Vatican II heretics who condemned Father Feeney and despised the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, it is no problem believing that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, while simultaneously believing that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is no problem for these people because they are of evil (Mt. 5:37).
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: “… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”[dlxxxiv]
Those who obstinately accept the heresy that is contained in these pre-Vatican II books – such as Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma – should rightly fear, as Pope Gregory XVI says, because they will without a doubt inherit a place in Hell if they do not repent and convert.
5. The Catechism Explained, Rev. Spirago and Rev. Clark, 1898: “If, however, a man, through no fault of his own, remains outside the Church, he may be saved if he lead a God-fearing life; for such a one is to all intents and purposes a member of the Catholic Church.”[dlxxxv]
According to this, it’s not only possible to be saved outside the Church (which is a direct denial of the dogma), but it’s actually possible to be, “for all intents and purposes,” a member of the Catholic Church while still outside of Her! This is so heretical and contradictory that it’s not worthy of further comment, except to say that what The Catechism Explained proposes here – that a man can be saved outside the Church as long as he leads “a God-fearing life” – is exactly what Pope Gregory XVI condemned in Mirari Vos: that a man may be saved in any religion whatsoever, so long as morality is maintained.
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained… without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”[dlxxxvi]
I could continue with examples of pre-Vatican II imprimatured texts which contain heresy, but the point should be obvious: the denial of the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation was well in place in the minds of most priests and bishops before Vatican II, so the opposition Father Feeney experienced in defending this truth in the late 1940’s and 1950’s comes as no surprise. The Great Apostasy was well in place in the 1940’s and 50’s, having actually begun in the mid to late 1800’s, and Father Feeney was attempting to stifle this tide of apostasy by cutting away at its root cause: the denial of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation.
Some have the false impression that the horrific pre-Vatican II heresy, which was catalogued above, was also taught by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis. This is not true. The passage that the heretics love to quote from Mystici Corporis is weak, but not heretical. It is accurately translated as follows:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, Speaking of non-Catholics: “[We wish] every one of them to co-operate generously and willingly with the inward impulses of divine grace and to take care to extricate themselves from that condition in which they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation. For even though they may be directed [or ordained] toward the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention, they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps and aids that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.”[dlxxxvii]
First of all, this passage from Mystici Corporis has been incorrectly translated by many to further weaken and to pervert the actual words of Pius XII. The phrase (ab eo statu se eripere studeant, in quo de sempiterna cuiusque propria salute securi esse non possunt) which is correctly translated as “…extricate themselves from that condition in which they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,” has been mistranslated as “look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation.”[dlxxxviii] This mistranslation gives the clear impression that non-Catholics have an outside chance at gaining salvation where they are.
It’s very interesting that even a heretical defender of Protocol 122/49, Msgr. Fenton, admits that “sure” is a seriously misleading translation.
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 88: “Many of the published translations of the Mystici Corporis Christi employ the expression ‘in which they cannot be sure of their salvation’ in rendering this clause into English. This terminology is both inexact and seriously misleading.”[dlxxxix]
Fenton goes on to point out that the mistranslation gives the impression that Catholics can be sure of their salvation, which is a heresy condemned by the Council of Trent (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 9).
The other part of Mystici Corporis that has been incorrectly translated by many to further weaken and to pervert the actual words of Pius XII is the phrase, in Latin: “quandoquidem, etiamsi inscio quodam desiderio ac voto ad mysticum Redemptoris Corpus ordinentur” has been mistranslated by many to read: “For even though unsuspectingly they are related in desire and resolution to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer…” This is a deliberate mistranslation which alters the meaning of Pius XII’s words. I will quote Bro. Robert Mary in Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation to explain why this is an incorrect translation.
“The abused word is ordinentur. The book, A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, by Roy J. Deferrari, gives us the following meanings for the Latin verb ordino: ‘Ordino, are, avi, atum – (1) to order, to set in order, to arrange, to adjust, to dispose, (2) to ordain…”
“Since the Pope uses the subjunctive mood to express a contingency of uncertainty, not a fact, the translation should read:
‘For, even though they may be disposed toward (or ordained toward) the mystic Body of the Redeemer, by a certain unknowing desire and resolution…’
“In other words, the only thing this ‘certain unknowing desire and resolution’ (inscio quodam desiderio ac voto) may be doing for these non-Catholics is setting them in order for entrance into, or return to, the Church. In no way does the Pope say, as fact, that they are ‘related’ to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, much less ‘united to it.’”[dxc]
Bro. Robert Mary has astutely pointed out how it is false to say that Pius XII taught that some non-Catholics are “related” to the Church by unknowing desire, and that Pius XII certainly did not teach that some non-Catholics are “united” to the Church. But this is how one finds Mystici Corporis translated in many papers, especially those written by priests who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
While the important observation above shows how wrong the modern heretics’ treatment of Mystici Corporis is, there is no doubt that Pius XII’s statement in the above passage – even correctly translated – is still pathetically weak, and opens the door for liberal heretics to claim that he endorsed the heresy that non-Catholics can be saved by their unknowing desire for the Catholic faith. Its weakness displays the mindset of a man who allowed heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation to run rampant in the seminaries, theology texts and Catechisms during his reign, even if not explicitly taught by him. Pius XII had no business talking about the supposed unknowing desire and resolution of non-Catholics, even if he didn’t assert that such could be saved. Everyone knows that even the mention of such a thing causes modernists to salivate like dogs over a tasty meal. Pius XII should have addressed non-Catholics in the manner of Pope Leo XII, and he should have reaffirmed that non-Catholics will surely perish if they don’t hold the Catholic faith in the manner of Gregory XVI.
Pope Leo XII, Quod hoc ineunte (# 8), May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation. In this universal rejoicing, one thing is lacking: that having been called by the inspiration of the Heavenly Spirit and having broken every decisive snare, you might sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.”[dxci]
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” (Athanasian Creed).[dxcii]
A strong reaffirmation of Catholic teaching such as this by Pius XII would have eliminated all of the heretics’ claims against the dogma by referencing his encyclical. Nevertheless, here are a few other statements from Pope Pius XII which are worthy of note.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”[dxciii]
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”[dxciv]
These two statements exclude the idea that one can be saved by even an explicit desire for baptism, since they affirm that those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism are not Christians or members of the Church or members of Christ. (Those who are not Christians or members of the Church or members of Christ cannot be saved.)
John 15:6- “If anyone abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.”
Actually, if one admits that the above quote from Mediator Dei is magisterial (and therefore infallible), it alone eliminates any theory of baptism of desire, because it asserts that the differentiation between those who have received the mark of baptism (and are members of Christ) and those who have not received the mark of baptism (and consequently are not members of Christ) is as pronounced as those who have been made priests by ordination and those who have not. In other words, according to the pronouncement of Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, to assert that one could be a Christian or a member of Christ without the mark of baptism (which is what the theory of baptism of desire asserts) is akin to asserting that one can be a priest without ordination.
Furthermore, as quoted already, in Humani Generis in 1950 Pope Pius XII actually put his finger directly on the heresy at work against Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”[dxcv]
Pope Pius XII is here condemning the exact heresy common to all the modern day heretics who deny this dogma. They reduce the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation to a meaningless formula by saying that it doesn’t mean what it says!
It should also be noted that even though Pope Pius XII did not teach that non-Catholics could be united to the Church and saved by a “certain unknowing desire and resolution,” if he had, he would have been teaching heresy – a heresy refuted by his own statements above. As St. Paul tells us, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8). The problem with Pope Pius XII, however, was not primarily what he said regarding this dogma, but what he didn’t say, and more specifically, what he allowed by silence, neglect (and perhaps by direct support) to happen to the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and Father Leonard Feeney, S.J. What he allowed to happen was a crime so momentous that it cannot be measured. What he allowed to happen would turn out to be an incalculable scandal to the faithful and an impediment to the salvation of millions of souls in his day, and for a generation to come.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#Section27
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment