FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Another EENS, please be patient...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(06-21-2011, 01:45 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]The excommunication was lifted, and he died in good standing with the church. Plus he was deeply devoted to our lady. What part of that is hard to understand?


I have proven his excommunication.  Now you prove the lifting of that excommunication, which lifting is absurd if he did not renounce his heresies.
(06-21-2011, 01:45 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]The excommunication was lifted, and he died in good standing with the church. Plus he was deeply devoted to our lady. What part of that is hard to understand?

I have proven the excommunication.  Now you prove that it was lifted (which lifting is absurd if he did not renounce his heresies).
(06-21-2011, 01:50 AM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-21-2011, 01:45 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]The excommunication was lifted, and he died in good standing with the church. Plus he was deeply devoted to our lady. What part of that is hard to understand?

I have proven the excommunication.  Now you prove that it was lifted (which lifting is absurd if he did not renounce his heresies).

Wow.

Here is the ACTUAL decree:

DECREE

THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.

Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.

Marius Crovini, Notary

AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100


Now for the facts:

I. Letter of the Holy Office

On August 8, 1949 a Protocol letter came from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It censored
Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for teaching the dogma of no salvation outside the Church in the literal
sense (this is, of course, how all defined dogmas must be understood). This letter was signed by Cardinal
Marchetti-Selvaggiani and was identified as Protocol No. 122/49. It was formally defective in that it was never
published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See). It is this register alone which confers an
official and binding character on a document. And even then, only so long as it meets the proper forms.

Consequently, this letter is without any binding effect as an act of the Holy See or any type of official Church
document.
Its status, then, can only be that of the opinion of one bishop, expressed in a letter to another bishop.

THe "excommunication" was Uncanonical and formally defective.

Decree of Excommunication

"On February 13, 1953 a letter of excommunication was released, having no statement at all in it on doctrine, but
had as its reason "grave disobedience of Church authority." Though this letter was registered into the Acta, it is
formally defective and thus invalid for the following reasons:


The letter lacked the seal of the Holy Office and/or of the tribunal and was only signed by a notary. In fact, it bore
no seal at all. The purpose of a seal is precisely to show the genuineness of a document and its contents, and is
required for validity.


The letter lacked the signature of the judge of the tribunal which issued it; where, for validity, the judgment of a
court of record must have.

The decree was never properly communicated to the accused, which by laws (and fairness) it must. It was first
published in America in the newspapers.

Fr. Feeney's summons to Rome was uncanonical. Therefore, the summons was null and the penalties resulting
from it are void. (1) Canon 1723: "Renders an uncanonical summons null." (2) Canon 1959: "Forbids penalties
without a trial."

As allowed by Canon Law, Fr. Feeney sent a letter dated July 16, 1953, entering a "Complaint of Nullity" against
the decree of excommunication, to the Holy Father. It was never answered. Not only was Fr. Feeney not given a
fair hearing, he was given no hearing at all, though required by Canon Law.

"I very seriously question both the good faith and the validity of any attempt to excommunicate me because I dared to call the substance of this decree to your attention, and because I dared to insist on my rights under it in both my letters of October 30 and December 2, 1952."


"News accounts concerning these events repeatedly referred to letters from Rome, purportedly written in connection with our case. Normally, such correspondence should have been sent to Father Feeney as the Superior of the Order. But Father had received nothing more than rumors. He therefore authorized two loyal members to obtain whatever documentation was available from Bishop Flanagan, Ordinary of the Worcester Diocese. Brother Francis and Brother Hugh (since deceased) called on the Bishop.
When asked the purpose of their visit, the following discussion ensued:

Brother Hugh: We were sent by Father. We read in the papers that letters have been sent from Rome in connection with our case. We would like, if possible, to see all the documents that pertain to Saint Benedict Center and to Father Feeney.

Bishop Flanagan: Let me first explain to you how this whole thing started and how I got involved in it. There was a bishops’ meeting about two years ago, and Cardinal Medeiros mentioned that he would like to see the Father Feeney case disposed of. He was anxious to send a statement to Rome saying that Father’s health was not too good and that he would hate to have him die apparently outside the Church. I expressed my enthusiastic approval of this policy."

"We sent a statement to Rome. The response came back: "Yes, by all means." The only requirement was that Father should make a profession of Faith. Bishop Lawrence Riley then went to the Center with Father Shmaruk. Father was very happy to say all the Creeds that you have. He was willing to recite every single Creed. And that was all that was required. And, now, is there any possibility for everyone to get together? Would you be willing also to do what the group at Saint Thérèse House have already done?"
(06-21-2011, 02:35 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-21-2011, 01:50 AM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-21-2011, 01:45 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]The excommunication was lifted, and he died in good standing with the church. Plus he was deeply devoted to our lady. What part of that is hard to understand?

I have proven the excommunication.  Now you prove that it was lifted (which lifting is absurd if he did not renounce his heresies).

Wow.

Here is the ACTUAL decree:

DECREE

THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.

Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.

Marius Crovini, Notary

AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100


Now for the facts:

I. Letter of the Holy Office

On August 8, 1949 a Protocol letter came from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It censored
Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for teaching the dogma of no salvation outside the Church in the literal
sense (this is, of course, how all defined dogmas must be understood). This letter was signed by Cardinal
Marchetti-Selvaggiani and was identified as Protocol No. 122/49. It was formally defective in that it was never
published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See). It is this register alone which confers an
official and binding character on a document. And even then, only so long as it meets the proper forms.

Consequently, this letter is without any binding effect as an act of the Holy See or any type of official Church
document.
Its status, then, can only be that of the opinion of one bishop, expressed in a letter to another bishop.

THe "excommunication" was Uncanonical and formally defective.

Decree of Excommunication

"On February 13, 1953 a letter of excommunication was released, having no statement at all in it on doctrine, but
had as its reason "grave disobedience of Church authority." Though this letter was registered into the Acta, it is
formally defective and thus invalid for the following reasons:


The letter lacked the seal of the Holy Office and/or of the tribunal and was only signed by a notary. In fact, it bore
no seal at all. The purpose of a seal is precisely to show the genuineness of a document and its contents, and is
required for validity.


The letter lacked the signature of the judge of the tribunal which issued it; where, for validity, the judgment of a
court of record must have.

The decree was never properly communicated to the accused, which by laws (and fairness) it must. It was first
published in America in the newspapers.

Fr. Feeney's summons to Rome was uncanonical. Therefore, the summons was null and the penalties resulting
from it are void. (1) Canon 1723: "Renders an uncanonical summons null." (2) Canon 1959: "Forbids penalties
without a trial."

As allowed by Canon Law, Fr. Feeney sent a letter dated July 16, 1953, entering a "Complaint of Nullity" against
the decree of excommunication, to the Holy Father. It was never answered. Not only was Fr. Feeney not given a
fair hearing, he was given no hearing at all, though required by Canon Law.

Thank you for the evidence you present.  Still, where is Feeney's abjuration of heresies and errors, which abjuration is a condition sine qua non for lifting the excommunication?  Anyway, St. Alphonse de Liguori is in Heaven and Feeney is.... I dare not say it ....
Q. What was he excommunicated for?
A. Disobedience - grave disobedience toward church authority  - - -FWIW, "church authority" = Archbishop Cushing.

FYI, being disobedient to then, Archbishop Cushing, now Cardinal Cushing (Fostered Culture of Modernism) does not make Fr. Feeney a heretic...........just FYI. Also FYI, one cannot legally be excommunicated for echoing what the Church has always taught - again, just FYI.

Actually wulfrano, you are a bit surprising because I do not take you for a modernist, and I believe that if you were confronted with obedience to the same modernist archbishop Cushing, you also would have been "excommunicated" rather than stop preaching what the Church has always taught.

Again, no disrespect intended but you honestly have no idea what you are even saying in regards to the good Father Feeney.
(06-21-2011, 02:46 AM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for the evidence you present.  Still, where is Feeney's abjuration of heresies and errors, which abjuration is a condition sine qua non for lifting the excommunication?  Anyway, St. Alphonse de Liguori is in Heaven and Feeney is.... I dare not say it ....

There was nothing that Fr. needed to abjure - that is why he was not asked to abjure anything.
(06-21-2011, 06:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]Q. What was he excommunicated for?
A. Disobedience - grave disobedience toward church authority  - - -FWIW, "church authority" = Archbishop Cushing.

FYI, being disobedient to then, Archbishop Cushing, now Cardinal Cushing (Fostered Culture of Modernism) does not make Fr. Feeney a heretic...........just FYI. Also FYI, one cannot legally be excommunicated for echoing what the Church has always taught - again, just FYI.

Actually wulfrano, you are a bit surprising because I do not take you for a modernist, and I believe that if you were confronted with obedience to the same modernist archbishop Cushing, you also would have been "excommunicated" rather than stop preaching what the Church has always taught.

Again, no disrespect intended but you honestly have no idea what you are even saying in regards to the good Father Feeney.


How did Cushing creep into the discussion?  We are talking of Pope Pius XII himself excommunicating Feeney.
(06-21-2011, 08:50 AM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-21-2011, 02:46 AM)wulfrano Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for the evidence you present.  Still, where is Feeney's abjuration of heresies and errors, which abjuration is a condition sine qua non for lifting the excommunication?  Anyway, St. Alphonse de Liguori is in Heaven and Feeney is.... I dare not say it ....

There was nothing that Fr. needed to abjure - that is why he was not asked to abjure anything.

Feeney was told, ordered and commanded to explain the dogma "Extra Ecclesia" according to Church teaching not according to his weird ideas.  He disobeyed.  He got screwed and never recanted.  Where is he now?
FALSE. He was ordered to APPEAR. And he did NOT appear because he knew he would not get a fair trial. He made specific inquiries as to what he was being accused of, and HE WAS NOT TOLD. It is uncanonical to order someone to appear before an ecclesiastical court without giving notice of what was taught. If he went, he would be giving sanction to ecclesiastical abuse, rendering his excommunication, so-called, null.

WHAT HERESY? Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salva is the church's teaching, and he defended it, when every other bishop in the US sold out, including Bishop Sheen, who was an admirer of Fr. Feeney.
So sorry for interrupting the flow of posts with a very long follow-up to posts long ago...
"Gregory" Wrote:BOD is not condemned after all, but it is not greater than a theological opinon.

Baptism of Desire is a lot more than "not condemned".  Pre-Vatican II theologians rate it as at least as a common teaching (meaning, the Church teaches it), counting only theologians approved by the Church.  This does not mean it has the certainty of a de fide teaching, but that we are supposed to believe it.  It has a long history in the Church, not one that just happened to spring up from post-modernist liberals.

As the common teaching it is by FAR safer to BELIEVE it even if not with as great a certainty as we have with the Magisterium.  We are meant to argue FOR it not against it, unless we are qualified theologians.  If you want to discuss Baptism of Desire to help you with any difficulties you may have, fine - but don't attack it. 

The approved theologians who have supported Baptism of Desire in the past were NOT modernists; they were defending the teaching of MANY saints and popes.  Even if not all the saints taught the same thing (or if anyone "changed their mind") the opinion in favor of Baptism of Desire (believing that at least dying catechumens might be saved without water) was (as you note) not condemned by the Church in 2000 years.  But if it was as terrible a danger to the faith as you say, the Church (not just some people) surely would have condemned it directly and explicitly by now - by explicitly saying: even catechumens who die without the sacrament can never be saved.  Believing "Outside the Church there is no Salvation" did NOT PREVENT many holy and learned Catholics from believiing in Baptism of Desire. To teach these Catholic children as well as Her enemies the Church would have spoken LONG AGO as Father Feeney has spoken (see "Is This Christ's Church" below)

Remember again what Pope Pius IX said about theologians:
"Pope Pius IX Tuas Libenter" Wrote:But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the foresaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.

#######################################################################
##### IS THIS CHRIST'S CHURCH? ##########################################
#######################################################################

I think you turn the long history of Baptism of Desire in the Church into a series of logical blunders, fuzzy sentimentalism, stumbling over what past Saints said by mistake, not seeing invisible water (I think I've heard folks say this),  speaking a little carelessly, post-modern liberalism etc, etc.  Well by those "blunders", according to  you, a virtual denial of the central Catholic truth "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION" has crept into CATECHISMS and THEOLOGY MANUALS  and common teaching for CATHOLICS since Trent.  Well, I think this is saying that CHRIST DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB OF PRESERVING TRUTH IN HIS CHURCH, and that FATHER FEENEY (and others like him) WERE NEEDED TO START TURNING THINGS AROUND.  I know we have reasons to question some of what recent  post-Vatican II Popes have taught.  But that is not PAR FOR THE COURSE as you seem to make it.

You say that the teaching of Baptism of Desire is unclear.  Well, then you must think CHRIST ALLOWED THE VAGUE INSIDIOUS MYTH OF BAPTISM OF DESIRE TO SLITHER THROUGH HIS CHURCH with the same results in the teaching of Catholics since Trent, and Father Feeney then came as a knight on a white horse brandishing the Catholic sword of faith to save the day.

Christ has (in your scheme) allowed even multiple POPES to contradict past popes, rather than to enlighten us further on how to understand the SAME DOCTRINE.  He allowed supposedly non-infallible teaching to almost totally OBSCURE rather than support the infallible teaching of the past.

----
NO!  I think that Christ has not let hideous error into the catechisms of children and approved theological manuals for adults.  In modern times - but about a century ago! - even the catechism of Pope St. Pius X taught baptism of desire. Oh - maybe the Pope didn't officially direct the catechiism, but it was written for his Catholic flock. Baptism of Desire came into the Church far, far back in history - not in the inventive minds of post-modernist thologians. Christ guided the growth of the belief in Baptism of Desire.

#######################################################################
#######################################################################

I AGREE that over history the details of what Baptism of Desire covers vary.  But it is common theological teaching, not a solemnly defined dogma . I do not believe you have the right to dismiss the whole thing because "it's just not defined".  Even if saints have contradicted themselves (which you'd have to prove),  common teaching pulls out what is best,  it is not corrupted over time.

Father Feeney insults the approved common teaching of the Church.  Common theological teaching is to be taken very seriously, as Pope Pius IX so clearly explained.

---------
I DO BELIEVE LIBERALISM HAS SPREAD ERROR IN THE CHURCH.  But liberals take the teaching of baptism of  desire and distort it into saying that "any good intentions get you to heaven" or  "we don't really have to send missionaries now", etc.

It is true that the teacihng of baptism of desire can be taken over by liberals.  But the teaching of the mercy of God in general  is taken over by by liberals and profligates who don't want to face His justice.  This doesn't mean we should stop teaching the mercy of God - or baptism of desire.

=====================================
"Gregory" Wrote:I am STILL patiently waiting for any document of the ordinary magisterium that teaches or shows what is considered baptism of desire.

I don't have one that satisfies YOU.  But you knew that.

The Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire, contrary to YOUR interpretation in a past post. I can say this with confidence because the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and Pope Pius XII  follow  or specifically mention Trent when giving this teaching. Your reasoning leads you to reject one key passage of the Catechism , St. Alphonsus, and Pope Pius XII where he mentions Trent.  If my reasoning led me near there, I would know with near certainty that my reasoning was faulty..  (The post I DID do, in response to yours, is ready to go.  I may submt it later, but let me know if you want it sooneer)


Here are some infallible (or non-infallable, you would say) teachings of Popes, and how I think you dismiss them.

I think you dismiss as "not magisterium" encyclicals (or parts of them) that imply baptism of desire such as Pope Pius IX .
"Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore" Wrote:7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

Your probably dismiss as "not infallible doctrine" this part the of the 1917 Code of Canon Law
"1917 Code of Canon Law" Wrote:“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)

You undoubtedly dismiss as "not infallible" Pius XII letter of the Holy Office on "no salvation outside of the Church' http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-c...ons.htm#a2
"Pius XII letter of the Holy Office" Wrote:--in part:

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. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

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.

You deny in some way the implications of::
"Council of Florence" Wrote:Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11 (Cantate Domino), ex cathedra: "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians."
[/b]
Quote: SO far everything supports the rigorist interpretation,

Everything being just those documents that qualify for being "ordinary magisterium" by your rigorist standards.Everything excluding the huge quantity of Saints, Popes, Theologians etc who even when not individually infallible ADD UP as something far more than the "nothing" you would call them. Tradition in the Church does not include just the magisterium.

Thank you, but I will trust Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII far more than you. They have the wisdom of POPES, and even you must agree that they are GREAT Popes.  That alone should make you stop relying so much on your own interpretations. Moreover I think their teaching in these places is a part of the ordinary magisterium, but of course you disagree.

As I have said, I think it is appalling to  think that Christ would have allowed the quantity and long history of even non-infallible teaching  on baptism of desire to obscure primary infallible teachings.