9 December 2009

More traditionalist than Tradition?

A brief post about a phenomenon that I find a little bit worrying; although perhaps it is inevitable in a situation in which there were fracturings of many continuities in the 1970s which many very admirable people are trying to repair: Being More Traditionalist Than Tradition; making up our 'Traditionalism' as we go along on the basis of insecure or even erroneous foundations. Sometimes, this ubertraditionalism is itself, paradoxically, actually heresy (vide five paragraphs down).

It seems to be part of a new quasi-Orthodoxy that Mass must be celebrated with the priest facing in the same way as his people. It is my own distinct preference. I opposed, in the 1980s, the reordering of Lancing Chapel so that the riddels of the "English" altar were removed. BUT the rubrics of the Missal of S Pius V provide very fully for Mass versus populum. And the Patristic evidence is not in favour of Mass facing away from the people except incidentally as that is a product of saying Mass facing East. Which is what the first millennium really was sold on.

Earlier this year, two very fine blogs, far better than mine, gave totally erroneous guidance on how to say the EF Mass if no-one else is present; and how loud the secreto parts of the EF Mass should be. O'Connell, a painstaking author who reproduces the wisdom of generations of rubricists and, more important, the innumerable decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, gives full information to anyone who takes the trouble to read him. [Ad primum: omit nothing; ad secundum: so as not to be heard by those nearby.]

And Concelebration: on which, this year, I have done two long series because a very interesting author, in a stimulating book (of which I provided a very positive review in New Directions), includes a throw-away footnote in which he dismisses the whole notion of concelebration in the Roman Rite, even in the Rite of Presbyteral Ordination. He gives no evidence and appears to be totally unaware that the magisterium of two popes - both of whom had a reputation for erudition and both of whom wrote centuries before our post-Conciliar ruptures - is perfectly clear about the matter (see my posts). Not to mention S Thomas Aquinas. My posts will also reveal, if you look back at them, my own disquiet about a number of practical aspects as Concelebration has evolved in the last half century. But to deny that the Western Church has any real tradition of Concelebration at all is poppy-cock. Whatever that is.

And some of our Ubertraditionalists also have a very unTraditional view of certain ecumenical matters; they appear, for example, to be unaware of the easy relationships between Latins and Byzantines, especially in the Levant and up to the end of the eighteenth century. It included frequent and unselfconscious "Intercommunion". And when fragments of the Byzantine community sought unity with Rome, it was granted on the basis of acceptance, even, in the 1720s, of the Patriarch of Antioch and his clergy and bishops corporately. Their jurisdiction was confirmed.

A few days ago, a correspondent on this blog brusquely advanced the view that outside the (Roman) Catholic Church valid orders simply do not exist. This may be a terribly satisfying position for a certain sort of mentality, but it goes contrary to the practice of the Church for sixteen centuries. It means that when Roman praxis has, for so many years, allowed an Orthodox priest ... or Coptic ... or an Old Catholic .... who comes into full unity, to be permitted to exercise priestly ministry in communion with Rome, it has been deliberately allowing Christ's Faithful to be deceived with pseudosacraments. It means that when Pope Eugene IV, at the Council of Florence, accepted into unity the whole Byzantine East (except of course those who themselves refused the union), he was deliberately and wickedly accepting as bishops and priests those who in reality were nothing of the sort. This is not Traditionalism; it is either dangerous ignorance or a deliberate repudiation of many centuries of Roman teaching. It is quite simply and unambiguously heresy. Like all heretics, the gentleman concerned should inform himself of what our Holy Mother the Church does teach, and then submit himself penitently to it.

Readers with good memories may remember the tragic figure of the Boston priest Fr Leonard Feeney, who in 1949, did get himself condemned by the Holy Office for a similar heresy involving just this sort of attempt to be more traditionalist than Tradition. He maintained, citing the bull Unam sanctam, that no one would be saved who was not in full visible communion with the Catholic Church ... no nonsense about 'invincible ignorance' or anything like that. He refused to submit himself to what the Magisterium - in the person of Pius XII - actually taught on this point, and eventually incarnated his own paradox by being excommunicated.

And in the next day or two I hope to say a few words about a recent Post by Bishop Williamson of the SSPX.


Unknown said...

I totally disagree with Feeney's views but you are not quite right. He was excommunicated for disobedience, not for heresy. His view was never condemned and when he was reconciled a few years before his death Rome specifically stated that Feeney had a right to defend his opinion on the matter.

Fr John Hunwicke said...

The Decree of the Holy Office of Aug 18 1949 reads to me like a condemnation of Feeney's views.

Michael McDonough said...

Christian and Fr. H,

I'm not an expert on Fr. Feeny, but I think you are both right, in different ways.

In 1949 Fr. Feeney refused to accept the formulation sent by the Holy Office, and after some back and forth, he was excommunicated for disobedience in 1953. In 1972, he was reconciled to the Church and he died in 1978.

Denzinger 3866-3873 (online at: http://catho.org/9.php?d=byv#dzl).

I think what happened between his excommunication and his reconciliation was Paul VI's "reform" of the Holy Office, and its "mission", as Cardinal Ratzinger describes it in "Salt of the Earth".

As to the phenomenon that Fr. H. is addressing in this post, however, he has his finger on something that seems to dog the Catholic community, at least in the modern era. We seem to work by contradictions, rather than by distinctions, acceptance, and peace. Each new "synthesis" creates its own "antithesis", and so on, and so forth.... It's almost a sense that there is a "zero-sum" game: what I win, you lose.

Possibly in 2009 that is a needed reaction to the lack of clarity (specificity) in the teaching of Catholic doctrine and practice, but I don't think it originated in the twentieth century (though I may be wrong). Now that I think about it, it may be the direct fruit of what the Popes have condemned as "the Modernist heresy".

Adulio said...

Rev. Hunwicke - can you provide the text of this condemnation? There is a religious order (who are Fr. Fenny supporters) that function in Massachusetts with the approval of the local Catholic bishop.

Holy Unia said...

You are severely wrong about Fr. Feeney!

The following text is from this web page:


The Status of Father Feeney’s Doctrinal Position
The right of his followers to defend Father Leonard Feeney’s doctrinal position has been affirmed by Church authorities. This includes our current Holy Father, while in his former capacity as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (For documentary proof of this claim, see the letters linked further down on this page.)

For the professional opinion of a competent canon lawyer on whether or not a loyal disciple of Father Leonard Feeney can be a Catholic in good standing, please see the linked PDF file of a letter from Mr. Peter Vere, J.C.L.1

Some helpful considerations on this matter are contained in the following four points:

1. Father Feeney died in the good graces of the Church, without even the slightest ecclesiastical censure remaining upon him. He did so without having changed his position on “no salvation outside the Church.” In fact, he made no doctrinal reversals of any sort. Knowing that he maintained his dogmatic “hard line,” Church officials lifted “any censures which may have been incurred” in 1972. This is minutely documented in the books Harvard to Harvard and They Fought the Good Fight.
2. In the Diocese of Worcester, there are three religious houses whose members believe and actively defend Father Feeney’s strict defense of “no salvation outside the Church.” Additionally, they all defend Father Feeney’s good name. Those three houses are St. Benedict’s Abbey, St. Ann’s House (the good sisters have no web site), and Saint Benedict Center. The Abbot of the Benedictine Abbey recently wrote a book defending Father Feeney, Harvard to Harvard. He remains a Benedictine Abbot — a prelate of the Catholic Church — in good standing.
3. Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, who was one of Father Feeney’s original followers, wrote a defense of our doctrinal position in his book, They Fought the Good Fight, which was published in 1987. Besides Brother Thomas Mary’s narrative and annotations, the book has long excerpts from Father Feeney’s strongest writings on “no salvation outside the Church.” Significantly, the book bears the Imprimi potest of Bishop Timothy J. Harrington, the Bishop of Worcester. (His Excellency granted this on January 15, 1987, thus indicating that the volume is free of doctrinal or moral error.) The book is now out of print, but is available on Amazon.com (ISBN #0-9620994-0-6). Brother Thomas Mary, who is now deceased, had a web site that a friend of his now keeps on line.
4. A well-known “Feeneyite” named Charles A. Coulombe was created Knight Commander of the Order of St. Sylvester by Pope John Paul II on 1 October, 2004. In other words, a “Feeneyite” is a Papal Knight. Mr. Coulombe is a well-traveled and brilliant scholar and historian. Along with several other books and numerous articles, he wrote a much-acclaimed history of the popes, Vicars of Christ. His lecture circuit includes Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh Universities. Mr. Coulombe spoke at Saint Benedict Center’s annual conference in 1998. His talks were entitled “Laureate of Little Towns: Fr. Feeney’s Place in Catholic Literature” and “London is a Place: Father Feeney and the Conversion of England.”

Below are links to three graphic files. They are all on letterhead from the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts. They demonstrate the cordial relations that existed between Brother Francis and His Excellency Bishop Harrington of Worcester.

Holy Unia said...

First letter: From Father Lawrence A. Deery, J.C.L. to Mr. Gene Cameron. It affirms that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are “indeed very much Catholic.” Father (later Monsignor) Deery was the Judicial Vicar and the Vicar for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Worcester.

Second letter [page 1 / page 2]: Father Lawrence A. Deery, J.C.L. to Father John McCormack, then Secretary for Ministerial Personnel for the Archdiocese of Boston, in which it is explained that the community in Still River, MA (St. Ann’s House) which underwent canonical regularization, did “in no manner abandon Father Feeney’s teachings.”
1 Mr. Vere obtained his Licentiate of Canon Law from the Faculty of Canon Law at Saint Paul University. As a Catholic writer, canonist and apologist, his work has appeared in numerous Catholic publications, including Surprised by Truth 3. He is the co-author of Surprised by Canon Law: 150 Questions Catholics Ask About Canon Law and More Catholic Than the Pope. Additionally, Mr. Vere is the lecturing professor for the Masters-level course in Canon Law offered by the Catholic Distance University.

ExtraEcclesiamNullaSalus said...

These communities are approved in the Diocese of Worcestor:




Here is the link of the Diocese of Worcestor site PROVING IT:


Nebuly said...

On a less weighty point

Sirian said...
Rev. Hunwicke - can you provide the text of this condemnation?

I draw attention to point five of advice on addressing Anglican Clergy given by the Church of England

If a cleric's name or initials are unknown, he or she should be addressed as The Revd - Smith or the Revd Mr / Mrs / Miss / Ms Smith. It is never correct to refer to a cleric as 'The Reverend Smith' or 'Revd Smith'.

Anonymous said...

Condemnations imposed and condemnations lifted are fickle things. I seem to recall that the Angelic Doctor was once condemned, by a Pope, only to latter be canonized by a Pope. In general, Fr. Feeney teachings (which even as an Anglican I like very much) have been mischaracterized and misunderstood. I believe that it was not so much the opinions he espoused that incurred the discipline but rather the radicalized opinions of some of his followers. I have always gotten the impression that Fr. Feeney was, though secretively, in cooperation with the Vatican. Perhaps I am wrong in my understanding of things? I do admire the work done by S. Benedicts Abbey, MA. Though, and I think they would agree, it is never good to "hobby-horse" on one man or one issue. They are doing a good work by defending the orthodox opinions and understanding of Fr. Feeney's work.

Unfortunately, we have the "jar-heads" that *know* communion with the Holy See is what they desperately what it to mean as opposed to what the Holy See defines it to be; hence, our present situation. Rome offers Anglicans *corporate* reunion. The particulars have not been enumerated so formal reunion has yet to take place; but for those whose desire is for this reunion, would it be fair to say that we have a situation of "reunion of desire?"* After all, hasn't this been the perspective of generations of Anglo-Catholics/Papalists? Rome can undo centuries old excommunications; she is equally free to undo centuries old schism. (I contemplate that John Mason Neale and others will be honorary members of the Ordinariat).

*I have used this allusion to "baptism of desire" intentionally.

Dale said...

it would appear that besides some super Byzantine-Orthodox who refuse to accept Fr. John (and myself) as a baptised Christian, there may be some Romans as well...albeit, perhaps, fewer in number.

The Sibyl said...

Oh Father! I fear you will be hearing from every Feneyite in the Untited States!

Along with Americanism, it is happily not an issue with which we must contend in far off Australia.

My interest lies in your comments about the versus populum celebration being the prefered pratice in the Early Church. I am minded of the comment made by Lady Bracknell upon being informed that total immersion was a practice of the Early church by Dr Chasuable "perhaps Dr Chasuable, that is why the Early Church is no longer with us" (or words to that effect).

In any event, certainly in Rome where the pre-existing unoriented Constantinian basilicas came into the hands of the Church the practice of vesus populum celebration became common, however in the anterior churches, indeed the most ancient christian churches of Syria there is very little or no room for the celebrant to face any direction apart from away from the people usually in oriented churches (perhaps enough for the inscensation).

If it is true, it seems a quite striking proof of the antiquity of Ad Orientem celebration facing into the apse.

I am happy to be corrected if this is not true - but certainly I recall having read it before and making a mental note (I think it was an article by a monk of Le Barroux).

It is certainly also true that the practice was relatively unseen in Northern Europe including the British Isles.

This perhaps, explains why the rubrics allow for both practices, less to encourage the Northerners to adopt Roman practices than simply to include the perculiar practices of the Roman Bascilicas.


Kiran said...

Dale, I don't think even the Feeneyites would deny you are baptized Christians, and Fr. Feeney would indeed be a heretic if he held that Orthodox orders are invalid. Nevertheless, the issue of the validity of Anglican Orders is a different one, even if, for some of the reasons Fr. Hunwicke adduces, it is not a problem standing in the way of the Constitution. I hope though that extremism doesn't keep people from accepting the Pope's offer.

Sir Watkin said...

I fear that the Sibyl has misread Fr Hunwicke.

That "versus populum celebration [was] the prefered pratice in the Early Church" was precisely what he did not say:

"And the Patristic evidence is not in favour of Mass facing away from the people except incidentally as that is a product of saying Mass facing East."

Fr Hunwicke's point is that applying the Patristic ad orientem principle generally results in priest and people facing the same direction, but does not necessarily do so. In some cases it produces "versus populum". (In theory it might also give you the "north end" position at some altars!)

Unknown said...

I have always thought the ad orientem argument a little dangerous and this sort of thing proves it...

The Sibyl said...

Thank you Sir Watkin, perhaps I did misread it, we are then it seems in complete accord.

I am at a loss however to understand why Christian finds this issue dangerous. I would have thought that ignorance of the issue was the danger.

Indeed, I find the term "dangerous" applied to this matter terrifyingly reminicent of a certain type of argumentation (or rather non-arguement) that was common in the late 70s and right through the 80s with specific application to traditional praxis or views in general.

Perhaps it was not Christian's intention to throw an old one liner like that into the mix?

If not then I would really like to know how discussion of the Eastward position/Ad Orientem/Versus Deum is in any way dangerous???

Dale said...

Kiran, it does indeed happen though. When Luci Johnson, daughter of President L.B. Johnson converted to Roman Catholicism, she was rebaptised, even though she had been baptised as an infant in the Episcopal Church. This was quite a few years ago, long before the Protestant Episcopal Church went off the deep end.

Kiran said...

Dale, but I bet that was conditional, not absolute. Deliberate repetition of baptism is blasphemous. Which is why the ruling that in Brisbane, they should be absolutely rebaptized takes on so much significance. It is effectively ruling that the form there simply invalidates the intention.

You are right. In past days (and I believe until quite recently) people did occasionally conditionally baptize. But I was not rebaptized, simply received and confirmed when I converted.

Unfortunately, in current circumstances, given that in some circles liberal theology, and therefore change of form, has taken hold, there might be a need to bring back conditional baptism of converts if there is some uncertainty. Nonetheless, the exception is not the rule. Most Anglicans are validly baptized.

Also, I don't know about LBJ's daughter, but in some low Church Anglican dioceses, belief in baptismal regeneration has gone to the extent that infant baptism itself is no longer performed or considered necessary.

All of the above said, I think the main thing is that I hope the actions and words of a few extremists, doesn't stop anybody from taking up the Pope's offer.

Kiran said...

Dale, she was conditionally baptized, and there is more than a suggestion that she requested it.... Seems very much like an exception to me.

Catholic Mission said...

from the blog:eucharistandmission.blogspot.com

A Dominican professor of theology at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum, today morning rejected the Catholic dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. On the feast day of St. Francis Xavier, Father Robert Christian O.P told about 50 young Catholic religious, men and women, that it was ‘untenable to hold the medieval understanding’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus...
Lumen Gentium, Vatican Council II numbers 14,15 and 16 is a reiteration of the principle of extra ecclesiam nulla salus he believed and that it applies to those ‘knowingly’ outside the Church...

To know and to be outside the Church he said would be ‘contumacious’.

Those with in invincible ignorance and with a baptism of desire he noted, can also be saved...

The Dominican priest was a contradiction, contradicting his own teachings.

Extraordinary Mode for instance: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus was an extraordinary solemn Magisterium teaching. It means de facto all people, everyone, with no exceptions, need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. It was ex cathedra and similar to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady.

So it was obligatory for Fr. Robert Christian to believe in the dogma which said : de facto everybody had to be a member of the Catholic Church with no exceptions to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. Those who rejected this dogma were outside the Church, in mortal sin. It applied to Fr. Robert Christian O.P today.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus was also part of the Ordinary Mode of the Magisterium explained in Dominus Iesus 20, the Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis S.J by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Redemptoris Missio 55, Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II etc.

When Fr. Robert Christian is unable to teach that de facto everyone needs to enter the Church with no exceptions, for salvation, he rejects the teaching on the infallibility of the pope on a faith-issue.

He is also indicating that a dogma can be altered with a new doctrine and also suggesting practically that it can be revoked.

Fellow Dominican St.Thomas Aquinas’ explanation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus is also being put aside. St. Thomas taught that everyone without exception needs to de facto enter the Catholic Church for salvation. However de jure, in principle and theory, there could be people in invincible ignorance who are saved and known only to God.

Instead Fr. Robert Christian implied that implicit salvation (baptism of desire etc) was the ordinary, de facto way of salvation for non-Catholics.

Ad Gentes 7 and other Church documents maintain that Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water is the de facto normal, ordinary way to go to Heaven for all people in general.

Since in reality Fr. Robert Christian rejects

1) A solemn dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as taught by the Catholic Church.

2) the infallibility of the pope/popes on this issue,

3) and teaches a new doctrine that de facto non Catholics can be saved in general when they are in invincible ignorance or have the baptism of desire - as contrasts to non Catholics being saved de jure in invincible ignorance and with the baptism of desire, which only God can judge

he has no right to celebrate Holy Mass until he receives absolution in the Confessional and makes public amends to rectify the scandal. He is in manifest mortal sin.

Lionel Andrades, Catholic layman

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com


Dale said...

Kiran, yes there is now a western rite Orthodox priest in Australia, who to play nice, is calling all of his baptisms of converting Romans and Anglicans as "conditional" as well. it seems rather close to playing the "economia" game to me.

Kiran said...

Dale, you are being quite harsh there. What the Orthodox do in the manner of baptism is bizzarre and odd.

What Catholics did was adapted in the light of variations in Anglican practice, and is very much exceptional. It is not the result of a challenge to sacramental forms outside the Church, but a suspicion that the forms in question are not being followed.

I am a convert, and I know many converts. I am yet to come across a single case of someone who was even conditionally baptized, who was a convert.

Catholic Mission said...

from the blog : eucharistandmission.blogpsot.com

EWTN has placed on the Internet a lengthy article by Fr.William Most .Here it is.

by Fr. William Most

'In the late 1940s Leonard Feeney, S. J. began to teach that there is
no salvation outside the Church. He was correct in saying that there
were official teachings, even definitions, on that score. But his
tragic error came when he adopted Protestant method, thinking that in
that way he would be one of the only true Catholics! We spoke of his protestant method with good reason. First, he was excommunicated for
disobedience, refusing to go to Rome to explain his position.'

COMMENT: Fr. Most agrees that he was excommunicated for disobedience and not heresy. This is progress!

'Then the Holy Office, under Pius XII, sent a letter to the Archbishop of Boston, condemning Feeney's error. (It is known that Pius XII personally checked the English text of that letter). In the very first paragraph pointed out what is obvious: we must avoid private interpretation of Scripture -- for that is strictly Protestant.'

COMMENT: This could also apply to the EWTN website. Fr. Most has an article on it titled The Church and Salvation.

'But then the letter said we must also avoid private interpretation of the official texts of the Church...What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell.'

They would be oriented to Hell according to the dogma mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
The dogma is that de facto everybody needs to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. There are no exceptions.
This is why he was not excommunicated for heresy.
Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II says those who know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter will go to Hell. This means millions of educated people in are present times are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II.

Feeney was citing the dogma and Catholic text. His writings elsewhere shows that he affirmed the love of God.

Fr. Feeney held the strict interpretation of the dogma which Fr. Most never affirms.Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy.

a) Restrictive Tests of the Fathers

The Shepherd of Hermas, 9.16:(c. 140 AD)...
COMMENT: Some of the above texts of the Church Fathers were the basis for the strict nterpretation of the dogma. Fr. Feeney affirmed it. Fr. Most does not.

b)Restrictive Texts of the Magisterium

Pope Innocent III, (1208:
DS 792):... Lateran Council IV (1215: DS 802)...Pope Boniface VIII, (1302: DS 870)...:
COMMENT: Fr. Most calls them ‘restrictive texts’ they are extraordinary ,solemn dogmatic statements of the Catholic Church it is from here that we get the ex cathedra dogma.

'But it is also a Catholic dogma, that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved, and that those who are contumacious against the authority of the same Church [and] definitions and who are obstinately separated from the unity of this Church and from the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, to whom the custody of the vineyard was entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation."

COMMENT: Here we have the statement that de facto everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church, with no exception.

Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of L. Feeney (DS 3870):

COMMENT: ‘Condemning doctrine’? The Letter supports Fr. Feeney on doctrine. It refers to the ‘infallible’ teaching and the ‘dogma’. We have the texts of the Church Councils and the popes. Fr. Feeney was in accord with them. Two of the communities he founded follow his teachings. They have been recognized officially today by the Catholic Church.

Catholic Mission said...

Fr.John writes:

'The Decree of the Holy Office of Aug 18 1949 reads to me like a condemnation of Feeney's views.'

The Letter seems to say it is a condemnation but does not specifically mention it.

The first part of the Letter refers to the dogma, the second part to disobedience and discipline.
E.g(The Letter of the Holy Office 1949)
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:2.
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

COMMENT: The above paragraphs refer to the disobedience of the St. Benedict Center to the Archbishop of Boston. They believed the Archbishop was in heresy. They refused to follow the doctrinal teachings of the Archbishop and the Jesuit Rector of Boston College. Time would prove St. Benedict Center correct.
The Archbishop did not make the Letter public and the media reported that non Catholics no more needed to convert. The Vatican intervened. They asked the Archbishop to make the Letter public. He finally did - three years after the Letter was issued.
There was no clarification in the media by the Archbishop of Boston.

'Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind...'

COMMENT: He assumes that it is Fr. Feeney, who personally did not defend himself. Fr.Leonard Feeney knew that he was affirming a dogma and so had to be correct. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus was an ex cathedra, infallible teaching from the Bull Unam Sanctam etc. It was repeatedly endorsed by other Councils and popes.
from the blog:eucharistandmission
Sunday, September 27, 2009

Catholic Mission said...

Fr.John in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 it is important to realize the key role of Archbishop Richard Cushing.

The Vatican was informed that St.Benedict Center did not de jure except the exceptions to the baptism of water( baptism of desire etc).The secular newspapers were informed, or allowed to think, that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for saying de facto everybody needs to enter the Church and there are no exceptions.
The Archbishop had placed St.Benedict Center under interdict and the Jesuit Rector and Superior expelled Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The conversion of Jews in Boston stopped and the world was led to believe by the media that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on the dogma extra ecclsiam nulla salus.
Never did the Archbishop puhlically afirm the dogm. Boston College still denies it.

Kiran said...

Ahem! I think the problem with Fr. Feeney, so far as I can see is that it is not at all evident what purpose all of this is intended to serve, or whose soul is it intended to save, or who we are bringing closer to God and his Church in relation to anything he says. He is just a priest with an extremely eccentric and provocative (dare I say "fundamentalist") interpretation of a Catholic dogma, whose only result, so far as I can see, will be to turn people away from God and his Church. This in mind, canonical censures are a minor matter.

Catholic Mission said...


Vatican Council II says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Catholic Church teaches after Vatican Council II (1965) that all people need to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).

Catholic Faith with the Baptism of water is the normal, ordinary way of salvation for all people (Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II).The Catholic Church is the ordinary way of salvation for all people (Lumen Gentium 14).Non Catholics however can be saved through the extraordinary means of salvation (Lumen Gentium 16).Only God knows who are the non-Catholics saved through the extraordinary means of salvation; the exceptions. We do not know who the exceptions are. We cannot judge. Jesus, the Church, Scripture and Vatican Council II indicate that the priority is Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for all people.

So everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church which is the like the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood (CCC).Non Catholic religions have good things in them. However they are not paths to salvation. All salvation comes through Jesus and His Mystical Body the Church. Those non-Catholics who know the above information and yet do not enter the Church are oriented to Hell (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14).Those non-Catholics participating in inter religious dialogue, are educated. They know. They are oriented to Hell.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Outside the Church there is no salvation. Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water are needed for all people. This is Vatican Council II.

No where in Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council II is it said that non Catholic religions are paths to salvation.

Vatican Council II is in harmony with John 3:5, the Church Fathers, Council of Florence, Evangelii Nuntiandi, Redemptoris Missio, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis etc.

Don’t let people fool you about Vatican Council II. Check the details and affirm the Faith which does not change.

Jesus called the Catholic Church “…my church…” He told St. Peter that it would prevail against Satan and be there for all time.

Catholic Mission said...

There can be only one interpretation of a Catholic dogma.

Kiran said...

"Catholic"Mission, and you are the purveyor of them, now?

No. Thank you. I prefer the Pope, the Church, and tradition, not Fr. Feeney or you.

And I can't think of any other name than presumption (unless you include logically confused) for the claim that you can judge en masse the state of men's hearts.

Catholic Mission said...

Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.
I too prefer the pope, the Church and Tradition.
However much of our information can come from non-Catholic sources.Perhaps for you too.
Consider the following:-

A statement of the Anti Defamation League(ADL) (Feb.4 , 2009, NY, USA, Vatican's Demand That Bishop Publicly Recant Holocaust Denial A "Major Positive Step Forward" on their website says:
'We welcome, too, that the Vatican has reaffirmed a full and vigorous implementation of the Second Vatican Council reforms, including Nostra Aetate, the 1965 Church document that rejects the deicide charge against all Jews, declares anti-Semitism a sin, rejects proselytizing of Jews, and calls for improving relations between Catholics and Jews.
'The Vatican's statement makes clear that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) must accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and the positive teachings about Jews by the last four popes, including Pope John Paul II, before they can be fully accepted back into the Roman Catholic Church.'

Yet NO WHERE in the much reported Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council II is it said that Judaism is a path to salvation and that Jews can be saved in general in Judaism or that Jews do not need to convert. No where does it reject the conversion of Jews.

On the contrary Vatican Council II says Jews need to convert to go to Heaven (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14).It says all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation and that those who know this and yet do not enter are oriented to Hell.(LG 14, AD 7)

The SSPX interprets Vatican Council II according to Pope Benedict XVI and Sacred Tradition - and not according to the ADL.

They see Lumen Gentium 14 as the ordinary way of salvation and Lumen Gentium 16 as the extraordinary way of salvation.

The SSPX agree that Vatican Council II was an historical event. They also, like the Holy Father, interpret the Council as a continuation and not a break from Sacred Tradition.
Pope John Paul II taught that Judaism was not a path to salvation.

'6. It must be firmly believed that the Church is sign and instrument of salvation for all people.[12] It is contrary to the Catholic faith to consider the different religions of the world as ways of salvation complementary to the Church.[13]
'7.According to Catholic doctrine, the followers of other religions are oriented to the Church and are all called to become part of her.[14]'
-Notification, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican on the book by Fr. Jacques Dupuis S.J (2001).

Pope John Paul also taught that Jesus died to save all people including the Jews. However to receive this salvation the Jews-and others-need to respond. They need to enter the Catholic Church (Dominus 20,21).

'In interreligious dialogue it needs to be kept in mind that Judaism is not a path to salvation.'(Redemptoris Missio 55)

Pope John Paul II also taught that there was no theology which could say that Judaism and the other religions are paths to salvation.
'… to hold that these religions, considered as such, are ways of salvation, has no foundation in Cath­olic theology, also because they contain omissions, insufficiencies, and errors[16] regarding fundamental truths about God, man, and the world…'-Notification, CDF, Dupuis N.8

Pope John Paul II endorsed Vatican Council II which states that a Jew who knows about the Catholic Church and yet does not enter is oriented to Hell. Abraham Foxman knew the Catholic Faith as a youth. He is educated. According to Pope John Paul, the pro abortion, homosexuality head of the ADL is oriented to where the 'worm dieth not and the fire is never extinguished .He is oriented to the placed of which the Jewish prophet Isaiah asked who stand a devouring fire for all time(33:14).

Catholic Mission said...

from the blog: eucharistandmission.blogspot.com


ROME - Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, in Rome for a U.N. food summit, spent several hours in the company of 200 Italian women recruited by an agency and tried to convert them to Islam, Italian media reported Monday…

The Catholic Church teaches that Islam is not a path to salvation and that Muslims need to convert to avoid Hell. De jure( in principle) there can be exceptions to Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water.However De facto all Muslims need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II indicate that Mohammad was not saved and was oriented to Hell barring the exceptional. The religion he founded -the Catholic Church and the Bible indicates, is not a path to salvation. The Last Judgment by Giovanni da Modena, is a 15 th century fresco in the cathedral of San Petronio, Bologna it shows the Prophet Muhammad being cast into the flames of Hell.

Catholics do not accept Mohammad as a prophet, nor Islam as a path to salvation. Muslims in general, according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, need Catholic Faith and Baptism to go to Heaven. They need to be baptized in the only Church Jesus founded, to reap the benefits of His Great Sacrifice for all people, Muslims included.

Islam is not a path to salvation and Muslims need Catholic Faith and Baptism to go to Heaven said Father Felix Muchado, Former Secretary, Council for Inter Religious Dialogue (PCID), Vatican. He was speaking with me at the PCID office near St. Peter’s Square on Tuesday (26.02.2008) morning. He was asked if non-Catholic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam etc) are not paths to salvation (i.e. to go to Heaven and avoid Hell).He said YES.

Do non-Catholics need Catholic Faith and Baptism in general, except for the exceptions, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell, he was asked. He answered yes. This was not mentioned in a triumphal sense or with hatred. It was a matter of fact statement.

Archbishop Angelo Amato,former Secretary, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican in an interview in the Italian daily Avvenire has emphasised the importance of Catholic Mission. He quoted the text from the Council Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14) which says:
˜All must be incorporated into Him by baptism, and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself explicit terms affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf.Mk.16:16; Jn.3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism (cf.Mk.16:16; Jn.3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.
He was interviewed at the Salesian University, Rome by Gianni Cardinale (Amato: non ce Chiesa senza missione, March 8, 2008, Saturday p. 21, Catholica, Avvenire).

Archbishop Angelo Amato, CDF, Sec., Vatican was saying that Judaism without the Jewish Savior is not a path to salvation and all Jews in general, need the baptism of water and Catholic Faith...

The Catholic Church, however, does not officially name any particular person in Hell. It does not even say that Judas is in Hell (or Heaven) even though Scripture indicates that Judas’ soul is in Hell.The Church indicates that some some sins orient a person to Hell; sins of morals and faith.

Catholic Mission said...


The Archbishop of Canterbury speaking at the Gregorian University at an ecumenical meeting of liberal Christians, said that there is no change in Church ecclesiology (under standing of Church) it was reported in the Times online (Nov.20,2009)

‘“As such, it is an imaginative pastoral response to the needs of some; but it does not break any fresh ecclesiological ground,” he told the meeting of senior priests, bishops and cardinals.'

The new members of the Catholic Church, former Anglicans, it should be mentioned are now saved. Since they are no more Anglicans and have entered the Catholic Church.

Rowan Williams soul, unlike those of the new convert Anglicans, is in risk of eternal damnation.( Vatican Council II , Ad Gentes 7,Lumen Gentium 14.Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, Ex cathedra dogma of the Bull Unam Sanctam, Council of Florence).

So he is correct, in a sense, there is no change in Church ecclesiology.(Unitatis Redintigratio 3,Ut Unum Sint). But not in the way he and Cardinal Kaspar understand Catholic ecclesiology.
From the blog: eucharistandmission.blogpsot.com

Catholic Mission said...

from the blog:eucharistandmission.blogspot.com

The Catholic Church teaches that all people need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. This was the teaching of the Church before the birth of Mohammad and Islam. There was only one Church which Jesus founded and God the Father wants all people to be united in this change. (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

The Catholic Church has always taught that anyone who leaves the Church (apostasy) is rejecting Jesus and the Catholic Church, His Mystical Body. The Bible says that Jesus will reject them on the Day of Judgement.

Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 14 states that those who know about the Church, who know about the Gospel and Jesus’ teachings and who yet do not enter the Church through Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water are oriented to Hell.

Moammar Gaddafi is informed. He knows. He rejects Jesus and the Catholic Church. Vatican Council II says that he is oriented to Hell at the time of death.

Catholic Mission said...

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Traditional Anglican priests who recently converted are being vetted for the Roman Catholic priesthood in England, by english bishops who permit practicing homosexuals to receive the Eucharist at Mass in a Church in Soho, London.

The Anglican convert priests need to get the approval and acceptance as priests on an individual basis in a process conducted by the non-traditional Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Scotland.

Also Anglican convert priests who reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus will be accepted as Catholic priests in England and Scotland. They will have to choose the compromised-formula, the new doctrine which says de facto those non-Catholics in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience can be saved and do not have to enter the Catholic Church.

The Anglicans have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to enter the Catholic Church. Now they are faced with a new obstacle to living the true faith.

According to the Archdiocese of Westminister Soho Mass Pastoral Council announcement on the Internet :

14. Homosexuals have the same need for the Sacraments as the heterosexual. They also have the same right to receive the Sacraments. In determining whether or not to administer Absolution or give Communion to a homosexual, a pastor must be guided by the general principles of fundamental theology, that only a certain moral obligation may be imposed. An invincible doubt, whether of law or fact, permits one to follow a true and solidly ‘probable opinion’ in favour of a more liberal interpretation.

On Oct 10, 2009 Catholics held a Rosary Procession in Reparation, for the sacrilegous Soho Masses approved by the Archdiocese of Westminster. Leaflets were distributed by Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice, England.

The Pastoral Council of Westminster and those in the Reparation Procession are following two different Catholic moral teachings.

Homosexuality is a mortal sin and a person needs absolution in the Confessional. Assuming a person has received absolution and has not committed sodomy or had wilful thoughts of lust (willful lust is a mortal sin also for heterosexuals) he could decide if he was worthy to receive the Eucharist.

If a person is an active homosexual and flaunts it in public through the internet and civil parternerships as announced by the Pastoral Council of the Westminster Archdiocese and lay homosexual websites it is a mortal sin.

It is a sacrilege to receive the Eucharist.

It is sacrilegious communion for the priests giving them the Eucharist.

Persons in public sin are not allowed to receive the Eucharist.The new announcement by the Soho Mass participants and organisers on the internet show that they are affiliated with homosexual organisations and are practising homosexuals.

The Church teaching is that homosexuality is a scandal-a mortal sin. It is an unnatural act and an impure act- a mortal sin.

The Soho Mass Pastoral Council No.14 is a rebellion. It indicates that the exceptions make the rule. It is contrary to the teachings of Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II's moral encyclical.It is a new moral teaching.

The Church's moral teaching has not changed. The homosexual is oriented to Hell if he dies immediately without Confession.

The Pastoral Council is saying that practising homosexuals are not in mortal sin. Westminister is saying that in general the homosexuals are not in mortal sin.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says homosexuality is an intrinsically evil act. Veritatis Splendor says that an intrinsically evil act is always a mortal sin, even if one suggests that the person is not aware of the sin.

Veritatis Splendour is clear that there is no 'invincible doubt'. Also we cannot judge who has an 'invincible doubt'.Veritatis Splendor says that the exterior action indicates the interior intention.It calls mortal sin a mortal sin.

from the blog.eucharistandmission.blogspot.com

Catholic Mission said...

Kiran writes

'And I can't think of any other name than presumption (unless you include logically confused) for the claim that you can judge en masse the state of men's hearts.'

Kiran the Bible and the Church says that people in general need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.

I am not personally judging. Neither was Fr.Leonard Feeney.

The ex cathedra dogma of the Catholic Church states that de facto all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
This is also the message of Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7.
Also of other Church Magisterial documents.
In Christ

Catholic Mission said...

Saturday, September 26, 2009

The Society of St.Pius Xl are in agreement with Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7,Lumen Gentium 14) which says that all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation and that those who know this and yet do not enter are oriented to Hell.
The SSPX interprets Vatican Council II according to Pope Benedict XVI and not the secular media interpretations.

They see Lumen Gentium 14 as the ordinary way of salvation and Lumen Gentium 16 as the extraordinary way of salvation.
No where in the much reported Nostra Aetate,Vatican Council II is it said that Judaism is a path to salvation and that Jews can be saved in general in Judaism or that Jews do not need to convert.
The SSPX agree that Vatican Council II was an historical event.They also, like the Holy Father, interpret the Council as a continuation and not a break from Sacred Tradition.
from the blog:eucharistandmission

Catholic Mission said...

Sunday, September 27, 2009

The ecumenism of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) Is an accord with the teachings of Vatican Council II.

The SSPX teaches that the ordinary means of salvation for all Protestants is Catholic Faith.This is also the message of Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. All people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation(AG 7).All.

All people include Protestants and the Orthodox communities.

Protestants can be saved by the extraordinary means of salvation however the ordinary means of salvation for Protestants is Catholic Faith. Those Protestants who know this teavhing in their heart and yet do not enter the Catholic Church are oriented to Hell (Lumen Gentium 14) Without an ecumenism of return we have a false ecumenism.
Ut Unum Sint indicates that Protestants need to enter the Catholic Church. Lumen Gentium 16 refers to those Protestants who are saved.They had a good conscience. They did not know about the Catholic Faith or have to the Gospel according to the Catholic Church preached to them.They did not know.

Lumen Gentium 14 refers to the ordinary means of salvation for all people in general .Lumen Gentium 16 refers to those saved extraordinarily.

So when I meet a Protestant I assume that he needs Catholic Faith not because I can judge personally but because the Church says so. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church in the past and in Vatican Council II. When I meet a Protestant I cannot judge if he or she is in the exceptional category. Only God knows, we do not . Pastorally, at the practical level when I meet a Protestant, I know that all Protestants need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14)
This is the teaching of the Church and not a personal view
Only the Catholic Church has been given the KEYS. It is the sole moral authority to explain objective truth.
A Catholic may believe in Jesus and read the Bible daily (like a Protestant) and attend Mass but of he is mortal sin at the time of death, he is oriented to Hell. So a Protestant may believe in Jesus but is in heresy if he is not in the Catholic Church.
The Bible says not all those who say “Lord, Lord” will enter Heaven but those who do the will of God the Father. It is the will of God that all people worship Him in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the flood (CCC).If one is a pagan or a newcomer to the Faith then just faith in Jesus is enough. However when one is a believer one has to live the moral and faith teachings of the church for salvation. The Catholic teaching differs from that of Martin Luther. Luther taught only faith is needed for salvation -irrespective of charity and morals.
The couple killed for simony also believed in Jesus but due to their morals they lost salvation (Acts of the Apostles 5). The Bible says that no fornicator etc can enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Galatians).

Catholic Mission said...

Saturday, September 24, 2011


To His Eminence William Cardinal Levada,
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.

Your Eminence,

The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing refused to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Church Councils, the Church Fathers, popes, saints and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston. He denied that everyone needed to be a visible, explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation with no exceptions. Instead he suggested that there were cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and this was explicitly known to us. He placed restrictions on the priestly faculties of Fr. Leonard Feeney even though the priest was not in heresy. He never corrected the Boston newspapers which reported that the Catholic Church has changed its centuries-old teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He refused to make the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 public for three years and even then would not lift the excommunication placed on Fr. Leonard Feeney for disobedience.


Catholic Mission said...

The same error of Richard Cushing is being made by Eternal Word Television Network(EWTN) in a report its has placed on the internet titled Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney.The article by Fr.William Most is also available on EWTN's website.

Similarly the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in the Notification on Fr. Peter Phan has stated that every one needs to enter the Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance etc. They are implying that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that we know explicit cases.

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia on the Internet makes the same error and this is a false catechesis of Catholics and misinformation about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Kindly address this issue and prevent the slander of a good priest who was faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church on extra ecclesiam nulla which Venerable Pope Pius XII referred to as 'the dogma', the 'infallible teaching'(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

In Christ

Lionel Andrades
Catholic layman in Rome.
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/


Catholic Mission said...