Feeneyite Controversy
Message 933 Traditional Catholics' Club
From: chip prescott
Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 8:25 am
Subject: I encourage ALL Traditional Catholics to take a look at...
On Baptism of Blood/Baptism of Desire: The matter was never defined infallibly and thus remains: UNDEFINED. Pius IX came closest (to my mind) when he said,in effect,is possible but hard theological speculations (of exceptions to No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church) are not lawful. This simply says to me there cannot be de fide pronunciations (for it is impossible to spell out into words) , though one can find historical examples (for with God, all things are possible-He is Ineffible). If one takes Maskaren's advise and avoid like the plague those who hold strict interpretations against all but visible water Baptisms ( as the Dimonds-who
have other errors that CAN TOO BE AVOIDED-I accept that the Secret of La Salette is "indexed", for example) you should avoid the Novus Ordo Church (a must) for there is an indulted 1962 Mass given to a "Feenyite" arm in Still River. You might soon avoid Nicholas Gruner (who has much to offer), who, some claim, has arrived at "the dogma", as they call it. His ace apologist
C. Ferrara may be indicating in the "The Neo-Catholic "Message" of Fatima" a couple years ago:
"Long since buried are the salutary warnings of Blessed Pius IX in Singulari quadam: It is for God alone to know whether, and how many, of the invincibly ignorant may be saved through an extraordinary means of grace (see footnote below) The faithful must �hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is one God, one faith, one baptism.� Therefore, �it is
unlawful to proceed further in inquiry� about the speculative final state of non-Catholics, lest the dogma nulla salus be undermined. Indeed, it was Blessed Pius IX who solemnly condemned as error the already fashionable opinion that �We must at least have good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ.� (Syllabus of Errors, condemned proposition #17). Yet �good hope� for the salvation of the members of all religions has implanted itself in the neo-Catholic mentality."
Ferrara footnote: In 1958, the eminent theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton lamented that there have been Catholic writers, and poor translations of Singulari quadam, which erroneously �present invincible ignorance of the true religion as some sort of sacrament, since they make it appear that the Sovereign Pontiff taught that persons invincibly ignorant of the true religion are simply not blameworthy in the eyes of the Lord.� (The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958. p. 45). Msgr. Fenton clarifies that Pius only taught that those who are truly invincible ignorant will not be held accountable to God for that ignorance. If they are deprived of the Beatific Vision after death, it will be because of mortal sins committed throughout their life, and because of the original sin which has not been cleansed by baptism. The question of the so-called �implicit desire� was never mentioned specifically in Singulari quadam. See also �Invincible Ignorance Neither Saves Nor Condemns�. Father Michael Muller (published in 1888, reprinted in CFN, April, 1998). (end of Ferrara paste-in, no copyright)
There are some VERY erudite writings by the "Feenyites" on this at catholicism.org (as well as the Dimonds) and this respondent should ease off. The Dimonds have droves of extremely valuable material besides this (they are sedevacantists first) and need not be listened to on it. They
don't have a chapel, their superior is passed on, and they can't be compared at all to schismatics cited here. The Cekada and Coomaraswamy materials are best refutations I know of, as cited by this same respondent. But see at catholicism.org: The Dogma of Faith Defended Against Right Wing Liberals By Brother Francis, M.I.C.M. (written in 1974). I'll try to cull from cited encyclicals with minimal surrounding comment (material is copyrighted): "Pope Pius IX Quanto Conficiamur Moerore ('With what sorrow We are consumed....') of August 10, 1863. He first condemns as 'absolutely contrary to Catholic teaching' the notion that 'persons living in error and outside the True Faith and Catholic unity can reach eternal life.'" "Catholic Currents, a Triumph publication, in its issue of October 15, 1973, misquoted Pope Pius IX in the same encyclical referred to above: 'For God, Who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accordance with His infinite
goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment.'"
"The same passage is more correctly rendered by Father Stepanich. '...for God, Who has perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, the souls, the thoughts and the deeds of all men, and He does not permit, in His sovereign Goodness and Mercy, any men NOT CULPABLE OF WILFUL SIN to be punished with eternal torment. (The Remnant, Nov. 3, 1973, p. 3.)'" end of catholicism.org paste-in, please accept.
In J.M.&J.
Prescott
Message 934 Traditional Catholics' Club
From:�Prax Maskaren
Date:� Mon�Mar�3,�2003� 10:55 pm
Subject:� Re: I encourage ALL Traditional Catholics to take a look at...
Dear Friends,
I have no intentions of getting into a fight.
I merely wish to point out that Feeneyites, such as the Dimondites, are NOT Catholics, but Schismatics, who departed the Church alongwith their Heresiarch Leonard Feeney, when the latter was excommunicated after obstinately refusing to attend to Rome despite numerous summons. According to Canon Law, Feeneyites fall in the category of voluntary seceders.
Secondly, it is not only the Feeneyites who are trying to pretend to be Catholics - as one of us, but even the "Old Catholics", as can be verified by a cursory check up on the Internet. (I live in India, where all this is academic: Sedevacantists and other dissidents are insignificantly miniscule, with the SSPX of Lefebvre having the largest following among us.)
If we must credit the 'Sedevacantism' of the Feeneyites, why not of the Old Catholics? Is there any good reason to reject them?
Thirdly, this is become a Scandal, with apologists of the New Church accusing us of being in cahoots with the Feeneyites such as the Dimonds. I learnt only from one such New Church apologist, John Loughnan, that the Dimonds are Feeneyites, although I now have personal confirmation from Peter Dimond.
Any one who says that he is a Catholic and a Feeneyite, lies, or denies Pope Pius XII as a legitimate pope.
Thirdly, Feeneyists dogmatically hold that we, who are Catholics, and every other group, whether New Church or whatever else, are HERETICS, precisely because we adhere to orthodox Catholicism and its condemnation of Feeney and Feeneyism.
Thus, in the group, Traditional Catholic Answers, we have this posted
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Traditional-Catholic-
Answers/message/4183) From: "presgerard"
My own personal experience: I was hounded by a Philip McCabe, disciple of one Feeneyite factional heresiarch today, Ibranyi, demanding that, in order to attain to salvation, I do a retraction of errors, etc. Needless to add, those errors are Catholicism.
Finally, it is not at all true and correct to say, and a grave and sinful misrepresentation of the Holy Church, that it put the Message of La Salette on the Index. In matter of fact, it did not.
The Church put the false, neo-Salettean messages put out by Melanie Calvet latter, about 1878, some thirty years after the original, approved Message.
I challenge anyone to prove that the approved Message was ever, ever put on the Index!
As for the pseudo-Salettean message, it is in flagrant contradiction of the Vatican Council's Pastor AEternas, issued in 1870, which infallibily and bindingly taught that Rome can never ever fall from the Faith.
Loughnan proves conclusively that this Melanist message is inspired by Protestant millenarianism, precisely by Luther's.
Too many people in the resistance give credit to these evil, false and condemned message, to our shame and scandal.
If we must credit these pseudo-Salettean messages, should we not go the whole hog, and accept "Pope John-Gregory XVII" of the Magnificat, Quebec, as the true Pope, successor of "Pope Clement", Michel Collin?
Is there any good reason why not?
Please excuse my long message... I write with the hope of benefiting souls.
Prax Maskaren
Message 935 Traditional Catholics' Club
From:� "Tom Vick" <tomv@p...>
Date:� Tue�Mar�4,�2003� 3:42 am
Subject:� Re: I encourage ALL Traditional Catholics to take a look at....
BOD and BOB are "something", no doubt in my mind. Many Catholic writers have "discussed" these, throughout history. What are they? I have an opinion, and that is ALL it is. They (BOD and BOB) are... . . SOMETHING, I believe. To deny BOD and BOB as "something", may (MAY) border on heresy, IMO (my opinion ONLY), although I refuse to call "Feeneyites" (rejection of both BOD and BOB) either "Not Catholic" or "Schismatics".
Until (if ever) the Church dogmatically declares WHAT they are, BOD and BOB may be discussed by Catholics, without denying any dogma of Holy Mother Church.
PAX
Message 936 Traditional Catholics' Club
From:� "chip prescott" <preschip@h...>
Date:� Tue�Mar�4,�2003� 11:50 am
Subject:� Re: I encourage ALL Traditional Catholics to take a look at...
Dear Respondent: No, I don't want to be long either. And I must make absolutely clear two things: 1. There is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church-the discussion was only as to non-visible Baptism. We will get long, and I haven't done a long-intended study of scripture that would take weeks-if we started on INvisible water Baptism (held by T.Boyle) or wide applications of Limbo (limbo being outside of eternal fire and thus "saved" -from eternal fire).
2. I agree with Loughnan. I simply hold indeed that the SECRET of La Salette in indexed. I don't know where the confusion was here.
I recommend the Dimond's heartily as an apostolate where videos and bound materials are abundantly available in the manifold heresies of the last four claimants. Where else will you read THIS (did even SSPX publish? - if they did, how can they maintain this is not major blaphemy from a doctoral graduate of theology?): 3/26/82 address to the International Congress of Pneumantology "The Holy Spirit is even mysteriously present in the religions and cultures of
non-christians [sic]...one could say of the Holy Spirit that so great and generous is this Spirit that each person has part of Him, and all have the totality of Him". (unowho).
If one cannot keep separate the various veins of solidity and error, one shouldn't pursue, yes. But with many, including the Dimonds, its just a matter of which "newletter" to turn to (or put down) and where to flag one's "caveat lector"/discalimers, etc. All must be careful, yes. Didn't this respondent send us off to four websites about Bush admin supressing 9-11? Is he agreeing with EVERYTHING on those sites? Of course not-we're adults here.
And we won't get into a "fight" but Feeney WAS NOT EXCOMMUNICATED. There was a letter from one Bishop to another that was NOT published in the Acta Apoastolica, and was signed only by a notary. I accept Pius XII fully, utterly, and his encyclicals as fully binding. What in the world is this respondent talking about? And what does he have in for the "Old Catholics"? They are miserable enough without being mentioned.
In J.M.&J.
Prescott
Dear Friends,
Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I am not a Lefebvrist, i.e., an adherent or attendant at the services of the SSPX. It is wrong to jump from the statement that the Lefebrvists have the largest following in India, to the idea that I too am one of these...
As far as 'unowho' is concerned, I totally reject the notion that either he, "Pope" Balaam IV, or his gurus Roncalli (Balaam I), Montini and Luciani are or were legitimate popes.
Feeney was legitimately excommunicated. The procedure, using a mere Curial notary, which was used, was one of the regular procedures used by the Church. As a matter of fact, I believe that even Michel Collin was excommunicated by a 'mere' notary.
When one challenges this procedure, one challenges the Church which instituted and maintained this procedure. Even more precisely, one challenges the very Pope(s) who countenanced and tolerated the procedure, for if it is wrong, he (and they) cannot escape personal culpability.
Make no mistake: In challenging the Church and its legitimate administrative procedures, one does nothing less than slap it in the face, throwing down the gauntlet.
In rejecting that Feeney was excommunicated, one challenges the Church and its authority, and puts oneself in a position of judging it. Such a one puts himself forward to sit in on judgment over Pope Pius XII and his legitimate representatives acting in his authority.
It is only invincible ignorance that excuses such claims (that the procedure used was invalid or defective, because by a 'mere' notary) and from the culpability that goes with insulting and judging Pope Pius XII. And is invincible ignorance a valid excuse when I have provided the convincing answer of Fr. Cekada showing that the procedure is valid and legitimate?
If there was any outstanding issue, after Cekada, then the proper procedure is to disprove Cekada. I am certain that Cekada will be glad enough to be disabused of his errors, if any.
I have NOT sent off anyone on a trip to four sites trying to sell the idea that Bush instigated and or plotted 9/11. I merely posted the post of another person (a Swedish friend by name of Hans Lundahl) who forwarded that of Gary Giuffre, and in my own page, I showed that this attitude and position (of Giuffre) is wrong and unjustified. I have taken the consistent attitude that this war, good or bad, is no concern of us Catholics, and that we have no need to get excited either way, but that we should concentrate on our own agenda, that of the restoration of the Church. As a matter of fact, I have also taken John Hixson's posts on the same subject and posted it (on Lundahl's list) as a counterbalance to Giuffre. (See http://groups.msn.com/Antimodernism)
It might help to read carefully, even reread, what I posted before making an allegation...
Finally, to come to what is the main purpose of this exchange: This has gone on long enough. And from my viewpoint, unnecessarily so. I understand that this list belongs to people associated with the MICM under Bishop Pivarunas. And I hope that this list is not favourable to Feeneyism.
My only concern is that of forewarning against the ever active and proselytizing activities of the Feeneyites. (When the Feeneyite McCabe began to target me, I had certainly not invited him; he began to do so gratuitously.) It should be a tragedy that any Sedevacantist or other dissident Catholic (such as one who is an adherent of the Cassiciacum Thesis of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers) should be seduced into Feeneyism. And that is what I wanted and want to prevent, if I can...
Nor is this danger insignificant: There is a lamentable lack of knowledge among our ranks of the issues involved, and the opposite party is very persuasive and determined to seduce souls.
As for the Old Catholics, believe me, aside from an attitude of contempt towards them, they are no better or worse than the Feeneyites. And bad enough as any sect is, I do not have an attitude of contempt towards their unfortunate dupes - whether Feeneyites, Jansenists, Dollingerites, Mariavites, etc. And frankly enough, even while I pity Francis Shuckhardt and his dupes, I do not bear an attitude of contempt towards either him or his present following.
And as for being 'miserable', there is no perceptible difference, in my eyes, between the 'miserableness' of the Feeneyite rabidity of heresy and that of the Jansenist Old Catholics.
From my viewpoint, since this has gone on long enough, I would like to end the discussion here.
Yours sincerely,
Prax Maskaren (This letter was not sent. On second thoughts, I decided that it would just inflame passions, and to leave off the argument.)
Message 947 Traditional Catholics' Club
From:� "chip prescott" [email protected]>
Date:� Wed�Mar�5,�2003� 12:17 pm
Subject:� RE:Father Feeney WAS excommunicated, yes-I retract
Dear respondents:
I have come to the conclusion the great Father Leonard Feeney was excommunicated and apologize. I've only gotten back into these materials recently and have changed my opinion. I am sorry to have taken this long. I can take some stock in that I've misled next-to-no one, as I'm not an
adherent to "no BOB/BOD" and hadn't said a thing on "the excommunication" for years until yesterday.
It is clear from www.traditionalmass.org:
"Was Fr. Feeney's Excommunication Doubtful? by Rev. Anthony Cekada- The Holy Office decree in question (Acta Apostolicae Sedis xxxxv, 100) reads as follows [edit]: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."
I will try to clarify points to respondent (On complaint that September 24, 1952 AAS did not have publication and present respondent invoking: "The fact is, Pius XII personally approved of the excommunication, and such failures in protocol cannot lessen the validity of what the pope directly does on his own. The Vatican Council of 1870 clearly taught that a pope has immediate jurisdiction down to the individual layman."): Excommunication is a (THE?) MOST extremely serious charge and it cannot be accomplished with a verbal aside (not suggesting this was done, but by this logic...) by even the Supreme Pontiff.
I submit without great discussion simple appeal to the above under Pius IX's Great Council is wrong. Any acts of the gravest censure against a priest by simple logic require valid public pronunciation (affixed to the Cathedral doors etc... never mind the three year delay which
HAD CIRCUMVENTED USUAL PROCEDURE by anyone's account ) which was not done until 1953. I suggest the evoked "jurisdiction down to the individual layman" is foremost JURISDICTIONAL and only after ESTABLISHMENT OF DOCTINES INVOLVED, given that the matter was initially, as least, doctrinal.
I am actually wanting to evoke this matter of Fr. Malachi Martin having been made a secretive bishop "In Pectorius" (of the heart of the Pope-sim) by Pius XII (see my prior postings-more to come, seems he was a Pius XII Cardinal as well). HERE one does NOT need publication for an AFFIRMATIVE JURISDICTIONAL action (I think I've finally used the phrase correctly), and it especially is not a doctrinal rebuke to actions which were causing groans from above (please God, I've stated this properly).
As to Infallibility of excommunication act, I am not versed. I have now read enough (of Dimond! and other accounts by sedevacantists) such that Liberius did NOT excommunicate Athanasius. I have been in the wrong trough (Gruner on this, for one) and am open, but most certainly Bellarmine has been evoked to dispel the elevations of Roncalli and Escriva in that a Pope can make erroneous pronunciations given erroneous (human) informations. How do you answer to these extremely sinful and scandalous (and we'll have the "topper" with Mother of Theresa of Calcutta soon) acts?
That I am NOT versed in the defense that "Even then the external judgment of guilt passed by the
tribunal remains a human judgment, and binds only the Church militant, not the court of heaven" (see below) should show me open, but I find the sequence below to favor Feeney' until, at least, 1953, and we thus arrive at "excommunication for discipline only" contention which Potter had IN ANY CASE to be the ONLY argument. My "The Boston Heresy Case" is out on loan but I'm sure Feeney did not form his strict water-only Baptism doctrines until later in 1953. Thus also the respondent's contentions that the latter action was tied to earlier doctrinal error is not taken flatly. I don't want to get into a cyclical argument, for the excommunication by a valid Pope
bound.
It is (also) the phraseology of the 8/8/1949 Ottaviani letter that Feeney (I believe) so strenuously objected to wit: after the Papal encyclical was cited : "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," - there comes non-previously-published comment: "and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but the
other hand states that they are in a condition"- now back to the encyclical-"in which they cannot be sure their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" AAS, loc. cit., 243-taken from matt1618 posting). As you doubtless take the Gumaeres side (if you didn't, you are nearly lost in "obedience") in his yr 2000 battle (that went nowhere-thanks Mike) with Davies on "Dominus Jesu" (that a "CDF encyclical" is not binding), you can certainly see Feeney's umbrage at this action by Ottaviani in a letter- a little pre-V2 maneuvering, safe to say.
To continue with Cekada: "The form of the decree against Fr. Feeney, in fact, was an oraculum vivae vocis � a legal act the pope or a Roman congregation first gives orally in an audience or a Plenary Congregation.
Such an act is taken down in writing by one of the curial officials present, who afterwards puts it into an appropriate legal form."
"The act is then promulgated (as a decree, decision, declaration, etc.) under the signature of a Notary, who is giving official written testimony of what he has heard in the audience or congregation. His testimony is given full faith and credit, and the act is law."
"One can find a treatment of this form of legislation in various commentaries on the Code of Canon Law.
"The oraculum vivae vocis is a standard form for many Roman decrees, including excommunications. For examples, see Acta Apostolicae Sedis, xii (1920), 37; xiv (1922), 379�380; xxii (1930), 517�520."
"The decree excommunicating Fr. Feeney thus followed the proper legal form. The technical defects his followers allege against it on these grounds are non-existent." (Sacerdotium 14, Spring 1995).
I do include this long outake (whatever will print to your board-its a "blow-by-blow" account) from the catholicism.org site I believe is not listed now and (thus) take the liberty to present in some sympathy with these strong apologists: Please see my comments bracketed.
Chapter3 The "Excommunication"
"On August 8, 1949 � almost four months after the silencing of Father Feeney � the Holy Office issued a document, a letter addressed to the Archbishop of Boston and signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, known as Protocol No. 122/49" footnote has it: "According to the Catholic Dictionary, a Protocol is a "preliminary memorandum in negotiations, serving as basis for final
agreement."
"On September 3, 1949, this Protocol was published in part in The Pilot, the official news organ of the Archdiocese of Boston. Three years later, on September 4, 1952, it was published in full in The Pilot under cover of an explanatory memorandum from Archbishop Cushing."
"On September 24, 1952, three weeks after its publication in full, the Center addressed a letter to Pope Pius XII in which it protested: "This Protocol is substantially defective in that it contains heresy insofar as it states that one can be saved under certain conditions outside the Roman Catholic Church and without personal submission to the Roman Pontiff. It is formally defective in that it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and consequently is without any binding effect as an act of the Holy See."
Footnote has it: "The Acta Apostolicae Sedis is a monthly publication established as the official journal of the Holy See. Decrees and decisions published therein are thereby officially promulgated and made effective."
[see my comment below]....
"Public reaction to the initial publication of parts of the Protocol letter in The Pilot of September 3, 1949, was predictable".... editing... "This was 1949; the Pope was Pius XII, yet not one bishop spoke out in defense of a solemnly defined dogma of the Catholic Church!"...
"As usual, the long, detailed letter to the Holy Father dated September 24, 1952, went unanswered. But one month later, in a letter from Cardinal Pizzardo of the Holy Office dated October 25, 1952, Father Feeney was summoned to Rome: 'The... Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and
attention, and recently, after having cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion. However, His Holiness... has decreed that, before any other measure be carried into effect, you be summoned to Rome for a hearing. Therefore,... you are hereby ordered to proceed to Rome forthwith and there to appear before the Authorities... of the Holy
Office as soon as possible.'"
"On October 30, 1952, Father sent a respectful reply to the Cardinal requesting a statement of the charges being made against him � as required by Canon Law. On November 22, 1952, Cardinal Pizzardo sent a terse reply: 'Your letter of 30th October clearly shows that you are evading the issue... You are to come to Rome immediately where you will be informed of the charges lodged against you... If you do not present yourself... before the 31st December this act of disobedience will be made public together with the canonical penalties.
N.B... The Apostolic Delegate has been authorized to provide for the expenses of your journey.'"
"On December 2, 1952, Father responded, repeating his request for a statement of charges and quoting Canon Law to prove that he had a right to receive such a statement: 'Your Eminence seems to have misconstrued my motives in replying to your letter of October 25, l952. I had presumed that your first letter was to serve as a canonical citation to appear before your Sacred Tribunal. As a citation, however, it is fatally defective under the norms of Canon l715 especially in that it did not inform me of the charges against me. This canon requires that the citation contain at least a general statement of the charges. Under the norms of Canon 1723 any proceedings based on a citation so substantially defective are subject to a complaint of
nullity.'" [my comment: here Feeney was clearly correct].
"On January 9, 1953, came another terse reply from the Cardinal: 'In reply to your letter of the 2nd Dec. 1952 asking for further explanations,... the Holy Office communicates to you herewith the orders received from His Holiness, that you are to present yourself to this Congregation before the 31st January 1953, under pain of excommunication incurred automatically (ipso facto) in case of failure to present yourself on the date indicated.
This decision of His Holiness has been made after the arrival of the latest documents from St. Benedict Center.'"
"This letter from the Holy Office deserves special comment. Cardinal Pizzardo here exhibits an odd eagerness to condemn Father Feeney. He threatens Father with excommunication if he does not present himself by January 31st. This he has the authority to do. However, he has no authority
to threaten anyone with an ipso facto excommunication unless it be for an obstinate disregard of Divine or ecclesiastical law".
[My comment: here Feeney's apologist cites correctly on the bogus nature of the threat, but
Feeney indeed exhibited lack of fealty, yes].
"There is no ecclesiastical law the compliance or non-compliance with which would make it possible for an order to be given requiring that a priest must come to Rome by such and such a date � or else! Therefore, by not presenting himself to the Holy Office by January 31st, Father Feeney committed no crime meriting an ipso facto excommunication. What he did do � that is, in the external forum of the Church � was provide a reason for an unjust and (as later events proved) heretical tribunal to excommunicate him juridically."
"No tribunal is necessary for an ipso facto excommunication. The deed of the culprit, in itself (eo ipso),places him outside the Church, not only in foro externo (if the act is publically known), but in foro interno (his very conscience accusing)."
"But the offense alleged against Father Feeney � not obeying a summons � provided matter for a court, or a judge, to weigh. The matter was judged and, prescinding from any extenuating circumstances or prior canonically-valid protestations by the accused, found to be a serious
infraction. Then, the judge � according to the only verifying witness, the Notary Marius Crovini � passed sentence and excommunicated Father Feeney."
"According to the Church's own canons distinguishing two types of excommunication, Father Feeney could not be excommunicated ipso facto (latae sententiae, i.e., the sentence having been carried out) because his action did not fall under the category of crimes meriting such an automatic
expulsion. However, Father could be excommunicated ab homine (by a judge), and that public form of excommunication is called ferendae sententiae (of the sentence that must be carried out).
"Under the former type of sentence there is always intrinsic guilt, for the sin is intrinsic in the very nature of the act. However, in the latter type of sentence, for legal validity, there must be some questionable matter of doctrine or discipline against which the accused has been inculpated. Even then the external judgment of guilt passed by the tribunal remains a human judgment, and binds only the Church militant, not the court of heaven. And even this imposition on the Church militant can be prudently and respectfully disregarded if the excommunicant is innocent and the salvation of souls warrants certain readjustments along the normal path of hierarchical obediences."
[see my comment below]
editing further example of valid confession out...
"On January 13, 1953, Father sent a long and strong letter to the Cardinal protesting the following:
a) Violation of the "secrecy of the Holy Office" in leaking their correspondence to the public press.
b) The Cardinal's repeated threats of imposing penalties without either accusations or proceedings, as required by the Sacred Canons and the common law of the Church.
c) The dissemination of Protocol 122/49 as a doctrinal pronouncement of the Holy See, knowing it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Father ended this last communication to Cardinal Pizzardo with a statement of righteous indignation: 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."
"On February 13, 1953, the Holy Office issued a decree declaring Father Feeney "excommunicated." It read as follows: Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict
Center), who for a long time has been suspended from his priestly duties on account of grave disobedience of Church Authority, being unmoved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto [sic], has not submitted, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, 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"
"The Appeal to Pope Pius XII : In foro interno, Father's conscience was never disturbed. However, in foro externo, he felt obliged to issue a public protest against the unjustness of the excommunication, and � perhaps in an effort to upset the complacency of the perpetrators � he also called attention to the many glaring canonical defects that were recurrent throughout his entire ordeal, leading up to and including the decree of excommunication itself. On July 16, 1953, Saint Benedict Center, writing in Father's name, sent a letter of appeal to the Pope in which these defects were pointed out....[substantial editing]....We hereby enter a Complaint of
Nullity against this purported decree of excommunication, which was dated February 13, 1953..."
"The appeal then went on to cite the breaches of the legal procedure which the Church's own laws require her prelates to follow in the promulgation of an excommunication ferendae sententiae."
"No answer was ever received to this Complaint of Nullity".
[edit to end].
Comments by Prax Maskaren: The above commentary alleging defects in the excommunication of Leonard Feeney, and Prescott's comments both ignore the true reasons for the peculiar but reasonable behaviour of the Vatican and the Church in this matter. This is that the Feeneyites had been conducting a guerilla war with the Church for more than a decade that culminated in Feeney's excommunication - see the activities of his 'St. Benedict's Centers,' such as in England, etc., which forced the Church to reprove them time and again for their immoderation and even outright and defiant pretensions to be hawking the true, official line of the Church - against the Church. (That there is 'No Salvation Outside the Church' even excluding the exceptions that the Church has historically made, right from the beginning, or the denial of the Baptisms of Blood and of Desire, denouncing these ancient Catholic doctrines as heresies!)
Feeney and his brood pretend that this excommunication was a surprise - that Curial officers fell down upon him like a bunch of monkeys out of a clear blue sky. The truth is that the Curia tried everything with him, even so far as to figuratively get down on its knees and beseech him not to carry on with his course of hawking error in the name of the Church, scandalizing the faithful and giving the Church's enemies yet another excuse to blaspheme her. All to no avail.
The whole story must be taken to get the context right - the excommunication of Feeney was not an isolated event, but was built up to both by himself and his disciples, for whose actions and teachings he retained personal responsibility as their ideologue. Thus, in isolation from these events - this guerilla war that spanned the Atlantic and which was carried on for more than a decade before 1953, the procedure used by the Church, that of stonewalling Feeney's 'just' demands to be acquainted with the charges against him, look odd and peculiar, even unjust. But taken with the whole context, they make clear and logical sense. Feeney was no innocent bakra being set upon by the Church, but a malicious, scheming and brazen hypocrite who got precisely what he deserved. That, and nothing more. - Prax Maskaren. [Above text was not posted.]
Message 952 Traditional Catholics' Club
From:� "Rob" <rawbit@c...>
Date:� Wed�Mar�5,�2003� 7:07 pm
Subject:� Salvation and the Church of Christ
It amazes me to see so much confusion on this doctrine. The followers of Fr. Feeney make this confusion so much the worse by the errors they promote on this subject of salvation. And the errors get passed on, even unwittingly.
Notice that the famous book referred to as "Denzinger" (Sources of Catholic Dogma) often quotes merely the private letters of popes to show what the Church believes? The Feeneyites try to have you believe that ONLY solemn dogmatic pronouncements can be believed as infallible. This is a SERIOUS error of theirs and it is severely harming Catholics today in the way they are trying to handle the debacle of Vatican II and ecumenism.
The Church teaches that the "magisterium" of the Church is ONE magisterium. It is protected from error by the Holy Ghost, period. This ONE magisterium normally teaches by the "ordinary" magisterium daily. On more serious occasions, and rarely, does it teach with solemnity, that is why it's also referred to as the "extraordinary" magisterium. The Feeneyites act as though only these solemn declarations are binding, and the rest is up for grabs by the individual. How wrong they are! This is partly due to their misunderstanding of "papal infallibility". Since a pope is the head of the whole Church, papal infallibility merely signifies that when he speaks solemnly for the whole Church, under the defined condition, the Holy Ghost THERE & THEN protects his teaching from accidental error in Faith or Morals. If those conditions are not met, what the Pope teaches, or permits in the Church is protected from error, in short order, as it makes its way into the ordinary magisterium. It is a serious sin, objectively, to not believe what the ordinary, universal magisterium teaches and permits to be taught. That is why the Council of the Vatican in 1870 said:
"...all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."
To believe with the SAME divine and Catholic faith that which is taught by the ordinary magisterium as we believe, for instance, the Assumption, is a dilemma for the Feeneyite's way of thinking. And let me show one result of this thinking...
We know that when the Church solemnly defines a matter, it would afterwards be a plain heresy to deny it. Yet the Feeneyite will point to solemn pronouncments that there is no salvation outside the Church (what they commonly abbreviate as EENS) and claim it is against the "baptism of desire". They don't realize the direct implication - that would make ALL men promoting the baptism of desire after that, plain heretics. Yet we have St. Alphonsus teach it , St. Robert Bellarmine, the Baltimore Catechism, St. Pius X's catechism, et al., AND NOBODY IN THEIR DAY NOTICED IT WAS A HERESY?! The absurdity of it is obvious. Here is a quote from St. Alphonsus long after solemn definitions of no salvation outside the Catholic Church...
St. Alphonsus Ligouri's Moral Theology Manual, Bk. 6, no. 95., "Concerning Baptism":
"baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent"
The Feeneyite would have to say that despite the solemn teachings, St. Alphonsus was a heretic, and nobody in the WHOLE Catholic world, including other Saints, ever noticed!
Reason tells you clearly the Feeneyite is wrong. It is similar to the controversy concerning the "filioque": The Greek Schismatics objected to the addition of the "filioque" because they illogically assumed that the Creed that previously omitted it was denying it by its omission. But we all know that the ordinary magisterium taught the filioque and that omission is not denial. The Creed didn't mention LOTS of other ordinary teachings of the Church beside the "filioque".
The Feeneyite does a similar mental sping-spang of logic. They wrongly conclude that because the solemn definitions about no salvation outside the Catholic Church did not mention anything
about "baptism of desire" that it was therefore denied! Horrible mistake.
The truth is that, to be considered being "in the Cathoic Church", it is sufficient that a person obtain sanctifying grace. Since the Catholic Church is the only TRUE Church, all other religions are "false". If they are false, that means they are NOT religions at all. They are merely clubs or organizations. Those clubs or organizations cannot be a means of sanctifying grace! So if a person in one of those "clubs" manages to obtain sanctifying grace, it is
not by means of that club. It is merely a rare thing of God's mercy and the good-will of the person who, through graces obtained from the Catholic Church for conversion, cooperated with those graces to make an perfect act of love and contrition, thus cleansing the soul. This conversion and sanctification are a PART of that one baptism that their newly found condition (unknown to them) will gravitate towards entering the Church in body. The transitional state is
considered being in the "soul of the Church". St. Rober Bellarmine taught that....and Fr. Feeney called it a heresy. Nonsense.
The same act that produces the baptism of desire, is the same essential act that can be produced by any Catholic previous to confession also, and thus is a part of confession. Namely, a
Catholic in mortal sin might be so penitent that he could obtain sanctifying grace even before absolution in the confessional by an act of perfect love and contrition - cleasing the soul. He would not know the state and still be required to seek what are the precept of the Church according to the Body of the Church - confession. That is why the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that, "...such is the efficacy of true contrition...that through it we obtain from God the immediate pardon of our sins.". The same Catechism clearly teaches also,
"... should any unforseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
If you look at the letter sent to Fr. Feeney in 1949 you will clearly see the doctrine spelled out for him according to all this.
Rob