Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Heresy before Vatican II

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, Sept. 19, 1846: “In the year 1864, Lucifer together with a large number of demons will be unloosed from hell; they will put an end to faith little by little, even in those dedicated to God.  They will blind them in such a way, that, unless they are blessed with a special grace, these people will take on the spirit of these angels of hell; several religious institutions will lose all faith and will lose many souls… Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist… The Church will be in eclipse…”

     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: “Q. 510.  Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church? A.  It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person (1) has been validly baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.”

      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, the means of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows… In special circumstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire for the same… In this manner also those who are in point of fact outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.”[dlxxxii]

     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 mehe 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

Protocol 122/49 was written in specific contradistinction to Fr. Feeney’s statement that all who die as non-Catholics are lost


     Heretics and modernists resist the truth, just as they resist Him who is the Truth (Jn. 14:6).  And because they resist the truth they resist facts, because facts report truth without any error.  One of the facts that the modernists and heretics resist most of all is the fact that the Catholic Church has infallibly taught that Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written and that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament). 

     So what do these people do with these facts staring them in the face?  They resort to attacking the reporter of these facts (argumentum ad hominem), which enables them to ignore the facts themselves.  The episode of Father Leonard Feeney, S.J. is a case in point.

     The dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation really has nothing to do with Father Leonard Feeney.  (In fact, I had never heard of Fr. Feeney when I came to the same conclusion – based upon Catholic dogma – that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation and that all those who die as non-Catholics are lost.)  It has to do with the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter, as I have shown, which is the authentic and infallible teaching of Christ.  To reject this Catholic dogma is to reject Christ Himself. 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5), June 29, 1896:  “But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”[dxlvi]

    Father Feeney became famous for his public stand for the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation in the 1940’s and 1950’s.  Most people fail to realize that, at that time, the world’s bishops were by no means staunch traditionalists.  Most of the world’s bishops had already embraced the heresy of indifferentism, which explains why almost all of them signed the heretical Vatican II documents just a short time later.  They had embraced the heretical idea that “invincible ignorance” saves those who die as non-Catholics, as I’ve discussed in certain previous sections.  This is why one can easily detect heresy against the dogma in most theology manuals and texts beginning as early as the late 19th century.  In fact, during his time, Father Feeney wrote to all of the bishops of the world about the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and received only three positive responses.  In other words, only three of the world’s bishops at that time manifested a positive belief in the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No salvation as it had been defined.  It is no wonder that Vatican II went through with virtually no resistance from the Episcopate.

     Father Feeney believed and preached the dogma – as it had been defined – publicly in Boston.  He believed and preached that unless a man embraces the Catholic Faith – whether he be a Jew, Muslim, Protestant or agnostic – he will perish forever in Hell.  Many converted, and many were angry.  He had not a few enemies, especially among the increasingly modernist, politically correct and compromised clergy.

     One of his main enemies was the Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing, a B’nai Brith (Jewish Freemasons) man of the year, and someone who called the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation “nonsense.”  In April of 1949, Cushing silenced Fr. Feeney and interdicted St. Benedict Center (the apostolate affiliated with Fr. Feeney).  The reason given by Cushing was “disobedience,” but the real reason was Father Feeney’s public stand for the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation.  It was not due to Father Feeney’s stand against the theory of baptism of desire either, since this wasn’t first published until 1952.  Cushing’s dissatisfaction with Fr. Feeney was strictly based on Father Feeney’s stand for the defined dogma that only Catholics – and those who become Catholics – can be saved.

    Cushing had allies with other heretical clergymen in Boston, the area where the controversy erupted.  Father John Ryan, S.J., head of the Adult Education Institute of Boston College, stated in the fall of 1947: “I do not agree with Father Feeney’s doctrine on salvation outside the Church.”[dxlvii]  Father Stephen A. Mulcahy, S.J., Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences of Boston College, termed it: “Father Feeney’s doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.”[dxlviii]  And Father J.J. McEleney, S.J., Provincial of the New England Province of the Society of Jesus, told Father Feeney in a personal meeting, that he was being ordered to transfer to Holy Cross College because of “Your doctrine.”[dxlix]  Father Feeney quickly responded, “My doctrine on what?”  To which Fr. McEleney replied, “I’m sorry, we can’t go into that.”

      Right from the start, these fallen clergymen fused the issue with Father Feeney rather than the real source from which it came.  This enabled them to focus on Father Feeney, and ignore Jesus Christ, whose doctrine this was

Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscum (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”[dl]

     These heretics failed to realize that to belittle a defined dogma to something of Father Feeney’s invention is blasphemous and severely dishonest.  But God is not mocked.  We see the same thing today, especially rampant among so-called traditionalists.  But I will return to this point. 


     On December 2, 1948, the President of Boston College, Father William L. Keleher, S.J., held an interview with Dr. Maluf, who was an ally of Father Feeney in the stand for the dogma.  Fr. Keleher stated:

Father Feeney came to me at the beginning of this situation and I would have liked to do something except that I could not agree with his doctrine on salvation… He (Fr. Feeney) kept repeating such phrases as ‘There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.’”[dli] 

      When Maluf (a member of the Boston College faculty) responded that this “phrase” is a defined dogma, Fr. Keleher said:

the theologians at St. John’s Seminary and Weston College disagree with Father Feeney’s doctrine on the salvation of non-Catholics.”[dlii]

     So there you have the case of Father Feeney in a nutshell.  Father Feeney held, as it had been defined, that there is no salvation for those who die as non-Catholics.  Those against him, including Fr. Keleher (President of Boston College), the Archbishop of Boston, the priests at Boston College, and the “theologians” at St. John’s Seminary, held a different doctrine “on the salvation of non-Catholics.”  This was the battle.  This was the dividing-line.  One was either on one side or the other.  One believed that there is no salvation for those who die as non-Catholics or one believed that there is salvation for those who die as non-Catholics.  Let me quickly remind the reader on which side he will find the Catholic Church.   

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), 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.”[dliii]

     A Jesuit priest of the new Vatican II religion skillfully describes what the scene was like when “the Boston Heresy Case” (i.e., whether only those who die as Catholics can be saved) erupted into public view during Holy Week 1949.
    
Mark S. Massa, “S.J.”, Catholics and American Culture, p. 31: “The Boston Heresy Case erupted into public view during Holy Week 1949.  The firings of Feeney’s disciples from Boston College made front-page news all over the Northeast: the New York Times began a series on Feeney and his group, and NewsweekLife, and Time magazines all featured stories on the Boston ‘troubles.’  On perhaps the most solemn holy day of the Catholic calendar, Good Friday, Feeneyites [sic] stood outside Boston parishes carrying placards warning of the impending subversion of true doctrine by Church leaders themselves and selling the latest issue of From the Housetops.  As one student of the event has observed, the question of salvation replaced the Red Sox as the topic of conversation in Boston bars, and anyone spied in a Roman collar became a potential ‘lead’ in the story.  The only analogue [comparable thing] church historians could think of was Constantinople in the fourth century, where rioting crowds had battled in the streets over the definition of the divinity of Jesus, and Greek theological phrases became the mottos of chariot teams.”[dliv]

     On April 13, 1949, Fr. Keleher (the President of Boston College) fired Dr. Maluf, James R. Walsh and Charles Ewaskio from the faculty at Boston College for accusing the school of heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  In his April 14 statement to the press explaining the reason behind their dismissal, Fr. Keleher stated:

“They continued to speak in class and out of class on matters contrary to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, ideas leading to bigotry and intolerance.  Their doctrine is erroneous and as such could not be tolerated at Boston College.  They were informed that they must cease such teaching or leave the faculty.”[dlv]

     One cannot help but notice Fr. Keleher’s double-tongue: these men were dismissed for ideas leading to intolerance, which could not be tolerated.  If intolerance is the false doctrine here, as Fr. Keleher indicates, then he is condemned by his own mouth.  Furthermore, one cannot pass over Fr. Keleher’s brazen assertion that “Their doctrine [i.e., the solemnly defined dogma that those who die as non-Catholics cannot be saved] is erroneous.”  By this statement Keleher is asserting that the Church’s doctrine (on no salvation outside the Church) is erroneous and in no way his own.  This was the type of heretical, anti-Catholic character in league with Archbishop Richard Cushing in the quest to crush Fr. Feeney’s preaching of the dogma. 

     This was the beginning of the end, so to speak, as will be seen when we look at what has resulted in Boston as a result of their selling out of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.


     About four months after the silencing of Fr. Feeney in April by Richard Cushing, the apostate Archbishop of Boston, the Holy Office issued a document on August 8, 1949.  Actually, the document was a letter addressed to Bishop Cushing, and signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, known to most as Protocol No. 122/49.  It is also called Suprema haec sacra and the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter.  It is one of the most crucial documents in regard to the modern apostasy from the faith.   Protocol 122/49 was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis) but in The Pilot, the news organ for the Archdiocese of Boston.  Keep in mind that this letter was published in Boston, as the significance of this will become more clear in the Section: “The Verdict is in: Boston leads the Way in a Massive Priestly Scandal that Rocks the Nation.”

     The absence of Protocol 122/49 from the Acts of the Apostolic See proves that it has no binding character; that is to say, Protocol 122/49 is not an infallible or binding teaching of the Catholic Church. Protocol 122/49 was not signed by Pope Pius XII either, and has the authority of a correspondence of two Cardinals (Marchetti-Selvaggiani who wrote the letter, and Cardinal Ottaviani who also signed it) to one archbishop – which is none.  The letter, in fact, and to put it simply, is fraught with heresy, deceit, ambiguity and betrayal.  Immediately after the publication of Protocol 122/49, The Worcester Telegram ran a typical headline:

VATICAN RULES AGAINST HUB DISSIDENTS – [VaticanHolds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False[dlvi]   

     This was the impression given to almost the entire Catholic world by Protocol 122/49 – the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter.  Protocol 122/49, as the above headline bluntly said, held the “No Salvation Outside the Church Doctrine” to be false.  By this fateful letter, the enemies of the dogma and the Church appeared to have been vindicated and the defenders of the dogma seemed to have been vanquished.  The problem for the apparent victors, however, was that this document was nothing more than a letter from two heretical cardinals of the Holy Office, who had already embraced the heresy later adopted by Vatican II, to one apostate archbishop in Boston.  Some may be surprised that I describe Cardinal Ottaviani as heretical, since he is considered by many to have been orthodox.  If his signature on the Protocol isn’t enough proof for his heresy, consider that he signed all of the Vatican II documents and aligned himself with the post-Vatican II revolution. 

     It’s interesting that even Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the well known editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review before Vatican II, who was unfortunately a defender of Protocol 122/49, was forced to admit that it’s not infallible:

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 103: “This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra [Protocol 122/49]… is an authoritative [sic], though obviously not infallible, document.  That is to say, the teachings contained in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document.”[dlvii]

     In other words, according to Fenton, the teaching of Suprema haec sacra is not infallible and must be found in earlier documents; but it isn’t, as we will see.  Fenton is simply wrong when he says that Suprema haec sacra is nevertheless authoritative.  Suprema haec sacra is neither authoritative nor infallible, but heretical and false.

     Since almost the entire public was (and is) given the impression that Protocol 122/49 represented the official teaching of the Catholic Church, it constituted the selling out of Jesus Christ, His doctrine and His Church to the world, a selling out that had to take place before the wholesale apostasy of Vatican II.  By Protocol 122/49 and the persecution of Fr. Feeney, the public was given the impression that the Catholic Church had now overturned a 20 centuries’ old dogma of the faith: that the Catholic Faith is definitely necessary for salvation.  And even to this day, if one were to ask almost every so-called Catholic priest in the world about the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, he would be answered with a reference to the Father Feeney controversy and Protocol 122/49, even if the priest is unable to identify or recall the specific names and dates.  Try it, I know from experience.  Basically all of the Novus Ordo priests who know anything about the issue will use Protocol 122/49 and the “condemnation” of Fr. Feeney to justify their heretical, anti-Catholic, antichrist, anti-magisterial belief that men can be saved in non-Catholic religions and without the Catholic Faith.  These are the fruits of the infamous Protocol 122/49.  And by their fruits you shall know them (Mt. 7:16). 

     Now let’s take a look at a few excerpts from the Protocol:

Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “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.”[dlviii]
        
     Let’s stop it right there.  Already it’s clear that the author of the Protocol is preparing the reader’s mind to accept something different than simply “that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.”  The author is clearly easing into an explanation of the phrase “Outside the Church There is No Salvation” other than what the words themselves state and declare.  If the author were not preparing the reader to accept an understanding other than what the words of the dogma themselves state and declare, then he would have simply written: “This dogma must be understood as the Church has defined it, exactly as the words state and declare.” 

      Compare the Protocol’s attempt to explain the dogma away with Pope Gregory XVI’s treatment of the same issue in his encyclical Summo Iugiter Studio.

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religionbut 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… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.  He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’  Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma.  Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’  Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use.  We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction.  Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you.  But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”[dlix]

     Pope Gregory XVI does not say, “However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it,” as does the heretical Protocol 122/49.  No, he unequivocally affirms that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.  Throughout the whole encyclical, Gregory XVI does not fail to repeatedly affirm the true and literal meaning of the phrase Outside the Church There is No Salvation, without qualification or exception, as it had been defined.  Father Feeney and his allies in defense of the dogma were reiterating exactly what Gregory XVI officially taught above.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if Protocol 122/49 was written to “correct” the understanding of Father Feeney on Outside the Church There is No Salvation (which it was), then Protocol 122/49 was also “correcting” the understanding of Pope Gregory XVI and all of the infallible statements on the topic for 20 centuries.

     Also, notice that Pope Gregory XVI makes reference to the dogmatic definition of the Fourth Lateran Council to substantiate his position and literal understanding of the formula Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  Throughout the whole document, Protocol 122/49 makes no reference to any of the dogmatic definitions on this topic.  This is because Pope Gregory XVI, being a Catholic, knew that the only understanding of a dogma that exists is that which Holy Mother Church has once declared; while the authors of the Protocol, being heretics, did not believe that a dogma is to be understood exactly as it was once declared.  That explains why Pope Gregory cited exactly what Holy Mother Church has once declared and the authors of the Protocol did not.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 4, On Faith and Reason: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declaredand there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”[dlx]

     If the understanding of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation was not clear from the teaching of the Chair of Peter (the infallible definitions on the topic), then a 1949 letter of Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani is certainly not going to give it to us!  And if no exceptions or qualifications to this dogma were understood at the time of the definitions – nor at the time of Pope Gregory XVI – then it is impossible for exceptions to come into our understanding of the dogma after that point (e.g., in 1949), because the dogma had already been defined and taught long before.  Discovery of a new understanding of the dogma in 1949 is a denial of the understanding of the dogma as it had been defined.  But define new dogma is indeed what the Protocol tried to do.  I continue with the Protocol.

Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “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... 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.”[dlxi]

     Here the Protocol begins to enter into its new explanation of the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, but in a diabolically clever manner.  The ambiguity lies in the fact that this statement is true: no one who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established, nevertheless refuses to submit to Her and the Roman Pontiff will be saved.  But everyone reading this document is also given the clear impression by this language that some people, who have unknowingly failed to submit to the Church and the Roman Pontiff, can be saved.  This is heretical and would actually make it counterproductive to convince people that the Catholic Church is divinely established! 

     Compare the dogmatic definition of the Catholic Church with the addition to the dogma by Protocol 122/49.

The Dogma:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[dlxii]

The Addition by Protocol 122/49:

Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “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.”[dlxiii]

    The reader can easily see that the intended meaning of Protocol 122/49 is a departure from the understanding of the dogma which Holy Mother Church has once declared.  No one can deny this.  The dogma of the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation has gone from application to every human creature (Boniface VIII) to “those knowing the Church to have been divinely established” (Protocol 122/49), again making it foolish to convince people that the Church is divinely established.  I continue with the Protocol:

Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “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...
     “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.”[dlxiv]

     Here one detects another denial of the dogma as it was defined, and a departure from the understanding of the dogma that Holy Mother Church has once declared.  Compare the following dogmatic definition of Pope Eugene IV with these paragraphs from Protocol 122/49, especially the underlined portions.

The Dogma:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:  “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards.  No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[dlxv]

     We see that Protocol 122/49 (quoted above) is denying the necessity of incorporation into the ecclesiastici corporis, which is heresy!

      It was necessary to be in the Church’s “bosom and unity” (Eugene IV), but now it is “not always required to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member” (Protocol 122/49).  The defined dogma of INCORPORATION and actually abiding in the ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) has been denied.  This is heresy!

    There is no way on earth that the teaching of Protocol 122/49 is compatible with the teaching of Pope Eugene IV and Pope Boniface VIII.  To accept, believe or promote the Protocol is to act contrary to these definitions. 

     I continue with the Protocol:

Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “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.”[dlxvi]

     Here the heresy comes out quite bluntly.  People who don’t hold the Catholic Faith – who are “involved in invincible ignorance” – can also be united by “implicit” desire, as long as “a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.”  And I remind the reader that Protocol 122/49 was written in specific contradistinction to Fr. Feeney’s statement that all who die as non-Catholics are lost.  That is to say, the Protocol was written to specifically distinguish its own teaching from Fr. Feeney’s affirmation that all who die as non-Catholics are lost, which shows that the Protocol was teaching that people who die as non-Catholics and in false religions can be saved.  Thus, the Protocol’s statement above is quite obviously, and nothing other than, the heresy that one can be saved in any religion or in no religion, as long as morality is maintained.

Fr. Michael Muller, C.SS.R., The Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218: “Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation.  To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of grace.  In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc.  Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself.  ‘Invincible ignorance,’ says St. Thomas, ‘is a punishment for sin.’ (De, Infid. Q. x., art. 1).”[dlxvii] 
    
Compare the above passage from the Protocol with the following dogmatic definitions.

The Dogma:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, “The Athanasian Creed”, ex cathedraWhoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith.  Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without a doubt he shall perish eternally.”[dlxviii]

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedraThis true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”[dlxix]

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”[dlxx]

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”[dlxxi]

     I continue with the Protocol:

Suprema haec sacra, “Protocol 122/49,” Aug. 8, 1949: “Towards the end of the same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church (qui ad Ecclesiae Catholicae compagnem non pertinent), he mentions those who are ‘ordered to the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention,’ and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but, on the contrary, asserts that they are in a condition in which, ‘they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,’ since ‘they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps to salvation that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.’”[dlxxii]

    In the process of giving its false analysis of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici CorporisSuprema haec sacra teaches that people who “do not belong” to the Body of the Church can be saved.  What’s interesting about this heretical passage in Protocol 122/49 is that even Msgr. Fenton (one of its greatest defenders) admits that one cannot say that the Soul of the Church is more extensive than the Body

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 127: “By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church.  The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’  Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”

     Hence, to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Body, as Suprema haec sacra (the Protocol) does, is to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Church.  Therefore, by its statement above, Protocol 122/49 taught the heresy that it is not necessary to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved, the very thing denounced by Pius XII.

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.” [dlxxiii]

    This is extremely significant, for it proves that the teaching of Suprema haec sacra – and therefore the teaching of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton who defended it – is heretical.  They both deny the necessity of “belonging” to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.  That is why it is fitting that, belonging to the one same body, they also have the one same will…”[dlxxiv]

     Less than three months after the Marchetti-Selvaggianni letter was published in part in The Pilot, Father Feeney was expelled from the Jesuit Order on October 28, 1949.  Father Feeney stood strong against the heretics’ attempts to beat him down and get him to submit to the heresy that non-Catholics can be saved.  Referring to the August 8th letter of Marchetti-Selvaggiani (Protocol 122/49), Father Feeney rightly stated: “it can be considered as having established a two-sided policy in order to propagate error.”

     The reality was that Father Feeney’s expulsion from the Jesuit Order had no validity.  The men who expelled him and the clerics who were against him were automatically expelled from the Catholic Church for adhering to the heresy that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved.  This is similar to the situation in the 5th century, when the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, began to preach the heresy that Mary was not the Mother of God.  The faithful reacted, accused Nestorius of heresy and denounced him as a heretic who was outside the Catholic Church.  And Nestorius was later condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431.  Here is what Pope St. Celestine I stated about those who had been excommunicated by Nestorius after he began to preach heresy.

Pope St. Celestine I, 5th Century:
The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.”[dlxxv]

     Pope St. Celestine authoritatively confirms the principle that a public heretic is a person with no authority to depose, excommunicate or expel.  The quote is found in De Romano Pontifice, the work of St. Robert Bellarmine.  This explains why all of the persecution against Father Feeney (expulsion, interdiction, etc.) had no validity, because he was right and those who were against him were wrong.  He defended the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church, while his opponents defended the heresy that there is salvation outside the Church.
St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.  Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
     Things between Father Feeney and the heretics in Boston remained unchanged until September 14, 1952.  At this point, Richard Cushing, the “Archbishop” of Boston, demanded that Father Feeney retract his “interpretation” of the dogma – which means retract the dogma – and make an explicit profession of submission to the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter (Protocol 122/49).  With four witnesses, Father Feeney presented himself before Cushing.  He told him that his only option was to declare the letter of Marchetti-Selvaggiani “absolutely scandalous because it was frankly heretical.”  This is exactly what Pope Gregory XVI would have said about the horrible Protocol letter, as well as any Catholic.

     During their meeting, Fr. Feeney asked “Archbishop” Cushing if he was in agreement with the Aug. 8, 1949 letter of Marchetti-Selvaggiani.  Cushing responded, “I am not a theologian.  All that I know is what I am told.”  This evasive and non-committal answer shows the true colors of Cushing, this heretic, false pastor and enemy of Jesus Christ.  If Cushing believed that one was bound to the letter, then he should have responded without hesitation that he agreed with it.  But because he didn’t want to defend the letter in any of its details, especially its denials of dogma, he responded by evading the question.  This evasion prohibited Fr. Feeney from putting him on the spot and convicting him with the dogma that was being denied.  Father Feeney accused Cushing of failing in his duty and left.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#Section27