Roberto Mattei expects the pope to do what is difficult for Mattei himself

Roberto dei Mattei writes on Rorate Caeili  that 'Confronted with this courageous voice which breaks the silence, Pope Francis remains silent and entrusts the mass-media with the task of judging it, according to their political and worldly criteria, so very different from that of the religious and moral judgment of the Church. A silence which appears even graver than the scandals brought to light by Archbishop Viganò.' but Mattei does the same thing. He denies the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and remain political correct.

His office in Rome is along side a church and could also be the property of the Catholic Church. 

Mattei wrote his books on Vatican Council II unaware of the difference between Vatican Council II Feeneyite and Cushingite.He still does not have it in him to admit his mistake.

He is not willing to affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS and will assume that invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc are visible exceptions.This is heretical but it is also poltically correct with the Left and the Zionist.

He remains silence on this issue and expects the pope to criticize and confront the homosexual lobby and break his silence.
He does not ask Pope Francis to affirm Vatican Council II (F) and EENS( F) since he does not do it himself.

-Lionel Andrades

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/08/de-mattei-i-will-not-say-single-word.html

Repost : Pope Benedict wrongly assumed Robert Kennedy, Richard Cushing and the Vatican ( Holy Office'49) were objectively correct and Fr.Leonard Feeney made a mistake

MAY 21, 2016

Pope Benedict wrongly assumed Robert Kennedy, Richard Cushing and the Vatican ( Holy Office'49) were objectively correct and Fr.Leonard Feeney made a mistake

JOSEPH KENNEDY CALLED UP HIS FRIEND THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON
It was Robert Kennedy who asked Cardinal Cushing to suppress Fr.Leonard Feeney  according to the memoirs of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy who was present when his father Joseph Kennedy called up his friend,the Archbishop of Boston.

Yes, it looks like all four played historic roles in the shaping of Christian theology. Reading Teddy Kennedy’s memoir, True Compass, just published today and already No. 2 on Amazon, I discovered a remarkable anecdote about how Bobby Kennedy may have been a crucial figure in the suppression of the controversial Boston Jesuit, Fr. Leonard Feeney. In Senator Ted’s account, Bobby, while a student at Harvard, was outraged at hearing Feeney declare that no non-Catholic can be saved:

[Bobby] discussed it with our father one weekend at the Cape house. I well remember the conversation.

Dad could not believe that Bobby had heard Father Feeney correctly. “But,” he said, “if you feel strongly that you did, I’m going to go into the other room and call Richard. Maybe he’ll want you to go up to Boston and see him.”

“Richard” was Richard Cardinal Cushing. Dad and the cardinal enjoyed a long and profound friendship. . . .

Bobby said he felt strongly indeed. Bang! Dad called up “Richard” and arranged for Bobby to visit him. The cardinal, as nonplussed as Dad, sent some of his people over to hear Father Feeney’s Thursday evening lecture. When he found that my brother was right, Cushing banned Feeney from speaking there; Feeney refused to obey the order, and in September 1949 the archdiocese formally condemned the priest’s teaching. . . . In February 1952, Father Feeney was excommunicated. 1

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was eliminated.The new salvation doctrine was placed in Vatican Council II. The Council reflects the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
The Letter(1949) discarded the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma.To do this it had to assume invisible cases ( baptism of desire etc) were physically visible.Hypothetical theories were supposed to be  'practically known'.With this irrationality they wrongly reasoned that there were physically known exceptions to centuries old understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus,which was defined by three Councils.

THEY BROUGHT A NEW PREMISE INTO THEOLOGY

They brought into the Catholic Church a new premise ( there are physically known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church) and a new conclusion ( so outside the Church there is known salvation, all do not need to formally convert into the Church to avoid Hell).

Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits placed this new concept of salvation in the text of Vatican Council II. The new concept was that hypothetical cases  of 'seeds of the Word' (AG 11), 'elements of sanctification and truth'( LG 8), 'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR 3), 'a ray of that Truth' (NA 2) etc were 'practical exceptions' to the Feeneyite interpretation on exclusive salvation in the Church.

LUMEN GENTIUM 14 BASED ON THE LETTER IN THE FR. LEONARD FEENEY CASE

So they concluded in Lumen Gentium 14 that not every one needs to enter the Church for salvation but only those who know, those who were not in invincible ignorance. This was the conclusion, the inference, of the Letter's false premise. 

Those who were in invincible ignorance, it was speculated,  thorugh no fault of thier own could be saved, and these cases were for them, objectively known.This is the rub. They were suppposed to be physically seen to be relevant  to the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology.

The irony is that inspite of all this confusion in Vatican Council II, the Council can still be interpreted in harmony with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma  outside the Church there is no salvation.
To do this, we only have to be aware of hypothetical cases and know that they are not exceptions to the dogma opposed by the Kennedys.

Since we know there cannot be any known exception to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for us humans, there cannot be anything in Vatican Council II which contradicts Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.The magisterium made a mistake.

There cannot be ' a development' with Vatican Council II since there cannot be any objective exception  to the dogma.So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.

Outside the Church there is no salvation since there is no known salvation outside the Church. There are no known exceptions. There canot be exceptions in Vatican Council II.

So when Pope Benedict recently said in the interview with Avvenire, that there was a development  with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and it was no more like in the 16th century, he was supporting the error of the Holy Office and Cardinal Cushing, after the Kennedy intervention.

Pope Benedict assumed Robert Kennedy, Cardinal Richard Cushing  and the Holy Office 1949 were objectively correct and that Fr.Leonard Feeney overlooked the baptism of desire, which for Pope Benedict, is objective and seen in the flesh.-Lionel Andrades

1.

ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.html

Bobby Kennedy’s intervention : ' Reinforced by Cardinal Cushing’s discussions with the papal hierarchy in Rome, it became an animating impulse of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, which opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962'  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/bobby-kennedys-intervention-reinforced.html

Repost : Bobby Kennedy’s intervention : ' Reinforced by Cardinal Cushing’s discussions with the papal hierarchy in Rome, it became an animating impulse of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, which opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962'

 MAY 20, 2016

Bobby Kennedy’s intervention : ' Reinforced by Cardinal Cushing’s discussions with the papal hierarchy in Rome, it became an animating impulse of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, which opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962'

How important was Bobby Kennedy’s intervention? Teddy doesn’t exactly underemphasize it: "I believe, though I cannot be certain, that Bobby's concern resulted, over time, in . . . a major shift in Catholic teaching regarding the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics. . . . Bobby wasn’t the only critic of Father Feeney, of course, but he was among the first to achieve results. Nor did his principled gesture end with the banishment of Feeney. Reinforced by Cardinal Cushing’s discussions with the papal hierarchy in Rome, it became an animating impulse of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, which opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962."

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.html

 

 

July 2, 2010

ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.html

Repost : ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY

JULY 2, 2010

ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY

According to the memoirs of Edward Kennedy it was his brother Robert who asked Archbishop Richard Cushing to suppress Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Augustine. Aquinas. Luther. Bobby Kennedy?! [Mike Potemra]

Yes, it looks like all four played historic roles in the shaping of Christian theology. Reading Teddy Kennedy’s memoir, True Compass, just published today and already No. 2 on Amazon, I discovered a remarkable anecdote about how Bobby Kennedy may have been a crucial figure in the suppression of the controversial Boston Jesuit, Fr. Leonard Feeney. In Senator Ted’s account, Bobby, while a student at Harvard, was outraged at hearing Feeney declare that no non-Catholic can be saved:

[Bobby] discussed it with our father one weekend at the Cape house. I well remember the conversation.

Dad could not believe that Bobby had heard Father Feeney correctly. “But,” he said, “if you feel strongly that you did, I’m going to go into the other room and call Richard. Maybe he’ll want you to go up to Boston and see him.”

“Richard” was Richard Cardinal Cushing. Dad and the cardinal enjoyed a long and profound friendship. . . .

Bobby said he felt strongly indeed. Bang! Dad called up “Richard” and arranged for Bobby to visit him. The cardinal, as nonplussed as Dad, sent some of his people over to hear Father Feeney’s Thursday evening lecture. When he found that my brother was right, Cushing banned Feeney from speaking there; Feeney refused to obey the order, and in September 1949 the archdiocese formally condemned the priest’s teaching. . . . In February 1952, Father Feeney was excommunicated.

I knew someone a few years ago who was a close friend of Father Feeney; I have it on his authority that Feeney was a very decent fellow. But Feeney was, in fact, teaching a crudely literalistic understanding of the doctrine of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (outside the church, no salvation) in which “ecclesiam” meant the visible, hierarchical Roman Catholic Church, and “extra” meant outside of it in the most visible sense. No Rahnerian “anonymous Christians” here — or, for that matter, Ratzingerian “as many [ways to God] as there are people.” The excommunication of Feeney was a public declaration by Pius XII’s Vatican that Feeney’s interpretation was impermissible in Catholic theology. How important was Bobby Kennedy’s intervention? Teddy doesn’t exactly underemphasize it: "I believe, though I cannot be certain, that Bobby's concern resulted, over time, in . . . a major shift in Catholic teaching regarding the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics. . . . Bobby wasn’t the only critic of Father Feeney, of course, but he was among the first to achieve results. Nor did his principled gesture end with the banishment of Feeney. Reinforced by Cardinal Cushing’s discussions with the papal hierarchy in Rome, it became an animating impulse of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, which opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962."

(I need to confess, yet again, my weakness for Irish blarney.) A confrontation between Father Feeney and the young Bobby Kennedy has been written about already; but I have never seen it alleged that Bobby and his father played an active role in the downfall of Feeney and his doctrine. This incident would go a long way toward explaining the later attitude of the Kennedys (most of them) to the Catholic Church: that it’s basically an ecclesiastical counterpart to the U.S. Senate, a place where reasonable people — who know whom to lean on, and how — can get mistakes in the law corrected.

N.B. Unlike certain other Massachusetts senators who shall remain nameless, Teddy got the Pope’s name right. 

09/14 09 The Corner, National Review. (National Review, 215 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10016,USA Tel: 212-679-7330)

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE4MGJhOGJlZWFiMzEzNjM2ODNkY2EyMzM4OGJlYWQ=

Posted by DeSelby 06/25/10 Pascendi Catholic Forum,CUSHING DOCTRINE SAYS LETTER OF HOLY OFFICE (1949) VIOLATES PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION_________________________________________________________________________________

John H. Fenton article in the New York Times titled "Cardinal Cushing: Symbol of 'New Boston'". Feb. 6, 1964. Page 31. Start at the third paragraph under a section appropriately titled "Ties to the Kennedys." 

The whole article is quite... interesting. Unfortunately, there is some bad fading in this photocopy which is completely unreadable. But the section in question is readable. I gave the date so someone could look it up on microfilm, or perhaps someone has a paid subscription for an online transcription. (note: I originally posted a link, but it won't work because it was tied into my library card account from an online free newspaper archive.)

Here is a section (three short consecutive paragraphs) from the Feb. 6 1964 New York Times article by John H. Fenton with the well known denial of dogma:

Turning to differences in dogma among Christians, Cardinal Cushing said, "We must recognize the obstacles, but we must not quarrel over them." 

"We are told there is no salvation outside the church—nonsense!" the prelate said. "Nobody can tell me Christ died on Calvary for any select group."

Then, with a twinkle, he went on. "As the feller says, 'It is great to live with the saints in heaven, but it is hell to live with them on earth."

DeSelby 06/28/10 Pascendi Catholic Forum

________________________________________________________________________________

1.The Archbishop closed down  St.Benedict Center  and the issue was doctrinal, specifically the ex cathedra dogma. 

2.He never in public affirmed the dogma.

3.He allowed Fr.Feeney to be criticized for affirming the dogma correctly.

4.He never discouraged the Jesuits in his archdiocese when they removed Fr.Feeney from their community because the issue was the interpretation of the dogma. 

5.He never corrected the errors in the Boston newspapers regarding the dogma and this would spread throughout the world.

6.He delayed making public the Letter from the Holy Office 1949.

7.Even after it was issued there was no apology from him.

8.Even years after the excommunication was issued there was no move to remove the excommunication on Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949

Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion...

Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist. (Emphasis added) 

  

The ex cathedra dogma shows us that  that Fr. Leonard Feeney was not in heresy and instead it was the Archbishop Cushing who was in heresy, he gave Catholics a new doctrine. He was tacitly saying implicit baptism of desire was explicit like the baptism of water. This is heretical since he  contradicted an infallible teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says everyone needs to be an explicit(visible) member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.