PART 5 FEENEY, EXTRA ECCLESIAM
On August 8, 1949, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued the Protocol , specifically condemning the doctrines of "the Cambridge group" as presented in From the Housetops, vol. 3. Feeney charged the Protocol was invalid, since it had not yet been published in the official register. The irony of this criticism is that according to John Cardinal Wright in a March 1976 article in L'OSSERVATORE Romano , His Holiness Pope Pius XII personally wished to supervise and, indeed, make the official English translation which would be sent to the Archbishop of Boston for promulgation in the battle zone." Wright admits being struck by Pius' concern for the matter: "I shall never forgethow painstaking, precise and scholarly was the Chief Shepherd of Christendom as he labored on a document to restore peace to a relatively small corner of the Christian World" (John Cardinal Wright, "Pope Pius XII: A Personal Reminiscence," L'OSSERVATORE Romano , English Edition, March 11, 1976, p. 3, quoted in Pepper, p. 34).
============================
Section I:
Two points need to be made:
A. There is a deception here. The point Matt.1618 makes about Cardinal Wright's testimony stating that "Pope Pius XII personally wished to supervise and... make the official English translation..." has no basis in fact. Why not? There was NO Latin original for this document. It was not even published until 1952, which was a few days AFTER its author, Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, died! And this only in an American newspaper! (The September 6th, 1952 edition of "The Pilot". Then it appeared in the October issue of the American Ecclesiastical Review.) It was Fr. Karl Rahner himself who translated the published English version into Latin to make it appear offical.
What a sham!
B. There is also fatal defect in Mat.1618's line of "reasoning" here:
Catholics do not base the authoritative character and weight, let alone authenticity, of a Church document upon the mere testimony of a man from a news paper interview. A news paper interview?!! No matter what Cardinal Wright said, this does not change the actual facts of the matter, nor the (lack of) proper qualifications of the protocal letter.
The letter of August 8, 1949 signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, known as Protocol No.122/49, was in fact formally defective in that it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (i.e., Acts of the Apostolic See). It is this register alone which confers an official and binding character on a document -and even then, only so long as it meets the proper forms. Consequently, this letter is without any binding effect as an act of the Holy See or any type of official Church document. Its status, then, can only be that of the opinion of one bishop expressed in a letter to another bishop.
Fact out-weighs a mere newspaper interview.
============
[Mat.1618]
Eventually, after repeatedly refusing several summons to Rome, he was excommunicated for persistent disobedience to legitimate Church authority by the authority of the Holy See on February 13, 1953, the decree of which was subsequently published in the His followers maintain to this day that his excommunication was invalid, and, while a clever canonist might very well be able to make a claim that the case was at least poorly handled, there is little doubt that as far as Pope Pius XII was concerned, Leonard Feeney was, in fact, excommunicated.
=============================
Section II:
Rather than make comments, let the facts of the case speak to the truth of the matter:
A. Fr. Feeney was summoned to Rome for a hearing by Cardinal Pizzardo of the Holy Office (10/25/1952) without being told why.
B. Fr. Feeney responded (10/30/1952) by requesting a statement of the charges being made against him -as required by Canon Law (Canon 1715). The summons by Cardl. Pizzardo, in violation of this canon, failed to either state the reason for the summons nor give a formal statement of charges against the defendant.
C. According to Canon 1723, any proceeding based on citations as defective as the Cardinal's letter are subject to a complaint of nullity; and also renders a non-canonical summons null. The complaint of nullity is allowed under Canon 1680. A complaint of nullity was formally filed by Fr. Feeney, yet it was never responded to nor acknowledged.
D. Instead, (on 11/22/1952) Fr. Feeney was threatened by Cardl. Pizzardo with an imposition of a canonical penalty without stating the crime for which it is imposed. This is in violation of still another canon: Canon 2225; AND, Canon 1959 forbids penalties without a trial.
E. Fr. Feeney responded back (12/2/52) by asking what he was being charged with. Again, according to Canon 1715, this was not only Fr. Feeney's right, but was required for those who do the summonsing. Also, Canons 1842 and 1843 required that the defendant be informed both of the charges against him and the nature of the proceedings to which he had been summoned.
F. On 1/9/1953 Fr. Feeney was then threatened with automatic excommunication (ipso facto) if he failed to report to Rome by a certain date. This letter ignored Fr. Feeney's points concerning Canon Law requirements, for the offense alleged against Fr. Feeney -not obeying the summons to Rome- is a matter for a court or judge to weigh. He could not be excommunicated ipso facto because his action did not fall under the category of crimes meriting such a sentence.
In the demands (and threats) from this member of the Roman Curia there were six (6) direct violations of Canon Law. It does not take a "clever canonist" to figure this case was "poorly handled." Both the appeals and canonical rights of Fr. Feeney were ignored and disregarded. Thus, this whole ordeal is not only suspect, but fallacious. Only pure bigotry could keep one from recognizing this.
II. "DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION"
On February 13, 1953 a letter of excommunication was released having NO STATEMENT AT ALL in it on doctrine, but had as its reason: "grave disobedience of Church Authority." Though this letter was registered into the Acta, it is formally defective and thus invalid for the following reasons:
A. The letter lacked the seal of the Holy Office and/or of the tribunal and was only signed by a notary. In fact, it bore no seal at all. The purpose of a seal is precisely to show the genuineness of a document and its contents, and is REQUIRED for validity.
B. The letter lacked the signature of the judge of the tribunal which issued it; where for validity the judgment of a court of record MUST have.
C. The decree was never properly communicated to the accused, which by law (and fairness!) it must. (It was first published here in America in the papers!) And most damaging to this document:
D. Fr. Feeney's summons to Rome was uncanonical, therefore the summons was null and the penalties resulting from it are void. 1) Canon 1723: "Renders a uncanonical summons null." 2) Canon 1959: "Forbids penalties without a trial."
E. There was never any canonical trial by a court concerning this case as proscribed by the disciplinary canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO CANON LAW, NO (VALID) PENALTIES COULD RESULT.
F. As allowed by Canon Law, Fr. Feeney sent a letter dated July 16, 1953 entering a "Complaint of Nullity" against the decree of excommunication to the Holy Father. It was never answered. Not only was Fr. Feeney not given a fair hearing, he was given NO HEARING AT ALL as required by Canon Law.
III. THE "RECONCILIATION"
In 1972 Fr. Feeney was "reconciled" to the Church. However, If Fr. Feeney truly needed to be reconciled, then he would have had to recant his position. Yet he was NEVER asked to do such. Anyone who is excommunicated for heresy must withdraw what they once held and proclaim belief in orthodoxy. But Fr. Feeney was NEVER ask to take back or repent from his teaching on "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation."
Therefore, Fr. Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for teaching that outside the Catholic Church and without submission to the Roman Pontiff no one can be saved. He couldn't be because the Church herself has dogmatically defined this. Rather, Fr. Leonard Feeney courageously upheld what the Church has always taught and he was unjustly treated and persecuted by fellow churchmen in positions of authority who abused the authority of the offices they held.
===========
[Mat1618]
In its letter to Archbishop Cushing on the Boston heresy case (the protocol to which Pope Pius XII had so carefully attended), the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office noted that "the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach. . . that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church." (T)his dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.
For, it was not to private judgments that Our Saviour gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church (in , 1952, vol. 127, pp. 308-15).
==================
Section III:
This is true, but (again) it erroneously presumes that there is or needs to be an interpretation of a dogma beyond the actual dogmatic definition itself. Also, Vatican I holds us bound to understand the Church's dogmas by the very words she has used to declare them -and NOTHING beyond. What the words declare IS the sense by which we are to understand them. Remember, Mat.1618 completely ignores (rejects?) what the Church has defined concerning the nature of dogmatic definitions and how we are to understand and believe them. Therefore, nothing he says stands.
==========
[Matt1618]
Just two decades later, the Second Vatican Council further clarified the position of the Magisterium: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience- those too may achieve eternal salvation (#16).
====================
Section IV:
In "Section IX" from Part IV of this Critique, it has already been demonstrated that, when seen in light of what the Church has previously infallibly defined on what is necessary for salvation, this passage from Vatican II does not teach that there are (or can be) exceptions to the necessity for Baptism in water and membership in the Church.
===========
[Matt1618]
It is interesting to note that the footnote for this very paragraph from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church refers to the protocol condemning the Boston heresy, which certainly lays to rest the popular claim among contemporary Feeneyites that the Protocol was simply a letter from one church bureaucrat to another with no particular force behind it.
==================
Section V:
This is of no consequence. Since Pope Paul VI stated that there were no "statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility..." (General Audience, January 12, 1966) at Vatican II, then we know that none of Vat. II's documents were necessarily protected from error, and thus are not infallible in and of themselves (except where they repeat what has been infallibly taught from the past). Therefore, it follows that a mere reference in a footnote to a fallible document bears no REAL Magisterial "force behind it" as Matt1618 would want his readers to think.
==================
[Mat.1618]
Here is the text of the letter:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Archbishop of Boston 8 August 1949: DS 3866-72
THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office
August 8, 1949
Protocol Number 122/49.
Your Excellency:
This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside Church there is no salvation." After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their Opinions and complaints and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from, the fact that the axiom: "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.
=====================
Section IV:
Axiom? AXIOM ??!! Dear Reader, did you see it? In two places this document calls the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation an axiom. Low and behold this letter, in stating that this DOGMA is an axiom, has already been solemnly condemned. That's right, dear Reader. It has already been condemned by Pope St. Pius X in "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" (September 8, 1907) and in "Lamentabili" (July 3, 1907: DNZ. 2022, 2026).
St. Pius X condemned the notion which holds that dogmas are to be held as axioms, and not as "formulas which absolutely contain the truth" (DNZ. 2079). Why? Well, because axioms are seen as truths which are general in nature and not necessarily absolute. This means to understand and hold the dogma of no salvation as an axiom, one is NOT bound to hold absolutely to the words of the formula as they are declared (even though Vatican I demands this of the Faithful). This in turn allows one to go beyond what the words of the dogmatic formula actually state and thus allow for exceptions. This is nothing other than the Modernist hermeneutic (method of interpretation) solemnly condemned by Pope St. Pius X. Pope Pius XII subsequently condemned this same notion in "Humani Generis" (1950: DNZ. 2310-11).
The composer of this letter, and whoever holds to what it teaches, has been condemned, censured and excommunicated already per Pope St. Pius X's solemn and binding Motu Proprio decree, "Praestantia," on November 18, 1907. Pope St. Pius X declared:
"By Our Apostolic authority, We repeat and confirm not only that Decree of the Sacred Supreme Congregation ["Lamentabili"], but also that Encyclical Letter of Ours ["Pascendi Dominici Gregis"], adding the penalty of excommunication against all who contradict them; and WE DECLARE AND DECREE this: if anyone, which God forbid, proceeds to defend any of the propositions, opinions and doctrines disproved in either document mentioned above, he is ipso facto afflicted by the censure imposed in the chapter "Docentes" of the Constitution of the Apostolic See: first among those excommunications "latae sententiae"... (DNZ. 2114)
Due to the above fact and circumstance, there is no need to go any further, for this is EXACTLY what Matt1618 is doing. Matt1618 is aligned with a document which, due to its notion concerning the dogma of no salvation outside the Church, has been condemned and censured. Matt1618 is thus excommunicated.
May Matt1618 recognize his error, repent of his error, repent of his
slander towards the good Fr. Leonard Feeney (who courageously upheld simply
what the Church has defined), and may he firmly believe and hold with divine and Catholic faith what Pope Paul VI reminded us we must hold, lest we be "excommunicated from the Church":
If we, for whatever reason, deny the ABSOLUTENESS of God's Law concerning the necessity of water Baptism for salvation, or any other defined dogma, then we too excommunicate ourselves by our heresy from Paradise, the Church.