EWTN's reports on Fr. Leonard Feeney are political propaganda: Without the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII Vatican Council II supports the Jesuit priest on EENS

 EWTN reports on Fr. Leonard Feeney, choose the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Richard Cushing to interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincibile ignorance, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II (LG 8,14,16 etc). Without the Boston Heresy, EWTN apologists and adminstration  would have to support the strict interpretation of EENS. They would emerge as Feeneyites themselves.

The Boston Heresy emerges after invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincibile ignorance(I.I) are considered physically visible examples of known salvation in personal cases, in the present times. Then it is inferred that the dogma EENS has practical exceptions and is now obsolete. So it is concluded that Vatican Concia II is a break with Tradition and has made traditional ecclesiocentrism obsolete.Since outside the Church there is (known) salvation.This was the reasoning of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston approved by the popes from Pius XII to Francis. All the cardinals accepted the irrationality of the 1949 LOHO and so does EWTN.

When the BOD and I.I are interpreted rationally, with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion, they are not practical exceptions for EENS.They do not contradict Feeneyite EENS.

But when they are interpreted irrationally, with the irrational premise, inference and non traditional conclusion, they are projected as  practical exceptions for EENS. They contradict Feeneyite EENS.

When the rational premise is used (  and there is no other ethical choice), then the Boston Heresy refers to the heresy of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the popes. They had confused what is invisible (LG 14, LG 16 ) as being visible and then made irrational conclusions, which were political.

So they approved the 1949 LOHO which says not every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation, as if they knew of some particolar exception in 1949.It was as if they could see or meet someone saved outside the Catholic Church, without faith and the baptism of water.The dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils says the opposite i.e everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

It is with this Boston Heresy that EWTN has posted some reports on the Internet.

1.Letter to the Archbishop of Boston.

2.Leonard Feeney on 'no salvation outside the Church'.

3.Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

In these three reports EWTN overlooks the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Richard Cushing.

Without the Boston Heresy EWTN would have to support Fr. Leonard Feeney and interpret Vatican Council II, rationally.The Council would then support the interpretation of EENS according to Fr. Leanard Feeney.

EWTN does not choose to be honest. It has to be political and dishonest. So it does not support the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and neither Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.

-Lionel Andrades

Letter to the Archbishop of Boston

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076

Lionel Andrades: EWTN position paper at odds with authentic Catholic teaching.

https://douglawrence.wordpress.com/tag/fenneyites/

 MARCH 16, 2023

EWTN admits that the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis EWTN is dishonest and political

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/holy-office-to-archbishop-of-boston.html

Leonard Feeney on 'no salvation outside the Church'

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/leonard-feeney-on-no-salvation-outside-the-church-12315

Tragic Errprs of Fr. Leonard Feeney https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/tragic-errors-of-leonard-feeney-12314

Archbishop Augustine Di Noia wanted the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the Boston Heresy for canonical recognition

 

DI NOIA WANTED THE SSPX TO AFFIRM THE BOSTON HERESY FOR CANONICAL RECOGNITION: THEY HAD TO ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL WITH THE FALSE PREMISE AND INFERENCE

Archbishop Augustine di Noia op, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican, along with the Dominicans, interprets Vatican Council II, in public, with the Boston Heresy. This is political. They know about this error in philosophy and theology. They officially teach it at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome. It is a public mistake and is not magisterial. The Archbishop, the CDF and Pope Benedict wanted the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with this Boston Heresy, for canonical recognition.

Since the CDF was not willing to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and honestly, the CDF could not dialogue with the sedevacantists and invite them back into the Catholic Church.

For the Dominicans at the Angelicum and Archbishop Di Noia, the Nicene Creed now means, “ I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, they are the baptism of desire, baptism of blood, saved in invincible ignorance etc, and they exclude the baptism of water”, in this way the Dominicans can reject EENS as it was interpreted by St. Dominic. This is a requirement for teaching at the Angelicum and being enrolled there as a student.

Canonically any archbishop, rector or superior who changes the interpretation of the Creeds is automatically excommunicated. It is also obligatory, according to Canon Law, to affirm the dogma EENS, defined by three Church Councils. EENS is not contradicted by Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to only hypothetical and invisible cases.

The Boston Heresy is interpreting invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16^th century. - Lionel Andrades

EWTN admits that the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis EWTN is dishonest and political

 

Holy Office to Archbishop of Boston, condemning the teachings of Feeney: DS 3866: "Non enim privatis iudiciis explicanda dedit Salvator noster ea, quae in fidei deposito continentur, sed ecclesiastico magisterio."-"Our Savior did not hand over the things contained in the deposit of faith to private judgment to be explained, but to the magisterium of the Church."

COMMENT: A note on p. 230 of Sennott says this response was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. This is true, but it still was a decision of the Holy Office, whose translation was approved by Pope Pius XII. The part just cited is clear from basic theology

Fr.William Most ( EWTN),

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/leonard-feeney-on-no-salvation-outside-the-church-12315

 

Caption: Fr.Leonard Feeney with one of the four Catholic professors expelled by Jesuit Boston College, for not saying that invìsible cases of the baptism of desire etc were visible exceptions for traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

 

EWTN admits that the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.The LOHO was heretical, irrational and unethical. It says that not every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. It contradicts two Church Councils. It postulates invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for 16^th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Modernism?

Caption : Four teachers of Boston College were fired for not saying like the Americanist Jesuits that invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible exceptions for EENS, as it was interpreted by St. Ignatius of Loyola and the founders of the Jesuit community.

The invisible-visible confusion of EWTN is unethical. It indicates that everyone does not need to enter the Church for salvation in the present times, is heretical. It contradicts a defined dogma. It suggests that  Vatican Council II ( irrational) is a break with traditional EENS. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc are interpreted irrationally with the invisible-visible confusion. In this way it contradicts EENS as it was interpreted over the centuries. This is schism.

With the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms and Syllabus of Errors etc are changed. This is a rejection.Thier meaning is changed.

Exceptions are created for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church, when in reality there are no known exceptions.EWTN is dishonest and political.

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.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Not always required ? Why ? Who do we know who is an exception in 1949? What is the name of the person saved without faith and the baptism of water in the present times (1949-2023)? How can invisible cases be exceptions for the dogma EENS?

- Lionel Andrades

 MARCH 16, 2023

The Boston Heresy refers to the public heresy of the popes from Pius XII to Francis. The heresy has infected the whole Church like the Arian heresy of the past. All the cardinals and bishops accept the Boston Heresy of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/those-boston-heresy-refers-to-public.html

MARCH 15, 2023

Wikipedia’s entries on Vatican Council II, extra ecclesiam nulla sales, Fr. Leonard Feeney, Feeneyism, etc reek with the Boston Heresy of the popes from Pius XII to Francis

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/wikipedias-entries-on-vatican-council.html

 MARCH 15, 2023

Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not seem to know this. This is now the heresy of the popes from Pius XII to Francis. This is the Boston Heresy. I call it Cushingism.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/pope-pius-xii-pope-paul-vi-and.html

Medjugorje : Barry from Canada

The Boston Heresy refers to the public heresy of the popes from Pius XII to Francis. The heresy has infected the whole Church like the Arian heresy of the past. All the cardinals and bishops accept the Boston Heresy of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.

 

The Boston Heresy refers to the public heresy of the popes from Pius XII to Francis. The heresy has infected the whole Church like the Arian heresy of the past. All the cardinals and bishops accept the Boston Heresy of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.

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.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949

This is the public heresy of Cardinal Luiz Ladaris sj, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). There has been no denial from him. It is also the public heresy of the SSPX bishops and Superior General Fr. Davide Pagliarani and the sedevacantist bishops Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunas.

Pope Francis is not Magisterial when he interprets the baptism of desire with the Boston Heresy i.e. confusing invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 14(baptism of desire) and Lumen Gentium 16(saved in invincible ignorance) as being visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors (ecumenism of return) and the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q- outside the Church there is no salvation).

Pope Paul VI could have interpreted Vatican Council II without the Boston Heresy, but he did not choose to do so - neither did the popes who followed. It is with this confusion that the CDF issued a political Left, Decree of Prohibition, against the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA. The religious community there was interpreting the Catechism of the Catholic Church (847-848 invincible ignorance) and Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14) without the Boston Heresy. They continue to interpret Magisterial Documents without the Boston Heresy unlike the bishop of Manchester, USA, Bishop Peter Libasci and the other religious communities in New Hampshire.

EWTN and Catholic Answers follow the Boston Heresy in the interpretation of Vatican Council II etc.

All the Synods interpret Vatican Council II with the Boston Heresy.

All the pontifical universities are interpreting Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the Boston Heresy. I avoid the error.

Peter Kwasniewski, Roberto dei Mattei, Joseph Shaw, John Henry Weston, Taylor Marshall, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Archbishop Carlo Vigano and Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechisms and Creeds with the Boston Heresy.

Cardinal Sean O Malley, the present Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits at Boston College interpret Vatican Council II with the Boston Heresy.

Brother Andre Marie micm and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, avoid this mistake. They are Feeneyites and not Cushingites.

Pope Benedict was a Cushingite. He wanted the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the Boston Heresy (Cushingism), for canonical recognition.

Brother Thomas Augustine micm, Superior, St. Benedict Center, Still River, MA, USA interprets EENS without the Boston Heresy but he interprets Vatican Council II with the Boston Heresy.

Similarly Peter and Michael Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA interpret EENS without the Boston Heresy but they interpret Vatican Council II with the Boston Heresy and then reject the nontraditional conclusion. - Lionel Andrades

MARCH 15, 2023

Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not seem to know this. This is now the heresy of the popes from Pius XII to Francis. This is the Boston Heresy. I call it Cushingism.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/pope-pius-xii-pope-paul-vi-and.html

Medjugorje by Ines from Costa Rica | Experiences personal miracle with two Crosses : "People should come to Medugorje to make that connection with her"

Medjugorje by Father Simon from Tanzania

Sunrise in Medjugorje | March 16, 2023