Posted on 07/09/2004 11:59:57 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
The statements to which you've objected are merely a quote from the original post. My comments to Land of the Irish are in the second paragraph.
While the theoretical concept of heresy still exists, it has no practical application in the modern Church.
Exposing heretics would make most of the sacred college of cardinals "uncomfortable" (to quote McCarrick).
Here's a cardinal example of an heretic in the hierarchy...
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/latest/perspective414.asp
Yes, pray the Rosary! And I would beg everyone also to pray the Chaplet of St. Michael the Archangel daily.
It does?
How frightening! Who's using this new "Rite?"
My mom was baptized this past Easter in our local N.O. parish, and during the Rite, they had explicitly asked if they (the newly baptized) rejected Satan.
P.S. This priest, and this parish, is not known for it's traditionalism.
You are very naive about heavy metal music where you a fan of it at one time? The insertion is right on the mark and Satanists use images like that. Heavy metal and rock music in general is garbage and the devil uses it to draw more people away from Christ. Now sure not every one who listens to it is going to act like these sick evil kids.
Satan uses distortions about sexuality. Sexuality has to do with life- he is anti life as you know. He want these kids to have sex and then abort there offspring which is child sacrifice. Heavy metal music encourages this unbridaled sexuality and it is evil. This is what Ratzinger had to say about Rock music.
Cardinal Ratzinger said,
"..satanical cults and satanical types of music are constantly spreading today whose dangerous power intentionally to wreck and eradicate the person has not yet been taken seriously enough.... Since rock music seeks redemption by way of liberation from .personality and its responsibility, it fits very ‘precisely into the anarchistic ideas of freedom that are manifesting themselves more openly all over the world. But that is also exactly why such
music is diametrically opposed to Christian notions of redemption and freedom, indeed
their true contradiction. Music of this type must be excluded from the Church for not for aesthetic reason, not out of reactionary stubbornness, not because of historical rigidity, but because of its very nature ‘(A New for the Lord, pp. 123-124)
This is a defidi teaching and an infallible statement from Pope Eugene IV,
THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (AD 1438-1445)
[From the Bull "Cantate Domino", February 4, 1441 "It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward; and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
Evangelize for what? This is the Conciliar policy:
Cardinal Ratzinger then sums up Vatican II's new teaching :
"... the recognition of a plurality of Churches within the Church implies two lines of change:
"(a) The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality. He must also recognize the need for a thorough Catholic renewal (translation: revolution, Ed.), something not to be accomplished in a day. This requires a process of opening up, which takes time. Meantime, the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches. The Church has not yet prepared for them a place of their own, but this they are legitimately entitled to."
"(b) A basic unity – of churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it." Theological Highlights of Vatican II 1966, p. 73
German newspaper "Frankfurter Allgemeine,early October 2000 " Cardinal Ratzinger explained,
"Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression according to which ‘the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.’ Instead, it preferred the expression ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church...’ because," he said, "it wished to ‘affirm that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church’."
The verbal ambiguity used by Vatican II to advance this false notion of is found in Lumen Gentium 8 wherein it says "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" rather than Pope Pius XII’s definition that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church [Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII]. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who has always been a progressivist, recently admitted that the word subsists was used at the Council in order to advance the [false] notion that the Church of Christ is actually bigger than the Catholic Church. What happened during the Council was the-then Father Ratzinger, acting upon the advice of the German Protestant, Pastor Schmidt, replaced the word "is" with the word "subsist" and through Cardinal Frings, submitted this new formula to the Council Fathers to vote on. This was part of the scheme by the progressivist theologians and prelates to give the Council document Lumen Gentium an ecumenical dimension and to propound the lie that the Church of Christ is somehow a broader entity than the Catholic Church.
On this point, Ratzinger said recently, "When the Council Fathers replaced the word ‘is’ with the word subsistit, they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by ‘is’ (to be) is far broader than that expressed by ‘to subsist’. ‘To subsist’ is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject." Interview in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine, Sept. 22, 2000.
Well if you're going to champion a soteriology that sweeps aside all but members in good standing of the Visible Church -- not to mention the teaching of the Roman Catechism and of Pio Nono -- all I can say is, it puts the patriarchs and prophets in a most awkward position. Not to mention poor St. Joseph, who never could catch a break. I sure hate to think of all these unbaptised non-Catholics in hell. Still, rules are rules, right?
What does this have to do with Christianity?
These are just people with nothing to look forward to, acting on their instincts...
I don't know who God smiles on anymore, but I think it has been a long time since there was anything to smile about in Italy...
By the Church's very definition of a saint, you can rest assured that St. Joseph is in Heaven.
I'm not at all worried about the Church's rules; I'm worried about yours.
Does the chaplet affect conversion?
You're worried about my rules?
Your interpretation of what Pius IX tells us is loosy goosy he also said other statements on No Salvation outside the Catholic Church. And then look below that for a web site for St. Leonord of Port Maurice- the problem of today is that people believe in the heresy of Universal Salvation and this is contrary to what Christ taught which is the doctrine of the FEW saved which is why we have to spread the truth of the Catholic faith, encourage people to enter and work out our own salvation as St. Paul tells us in fear and trembling. God bless you and I wish you Godspeed in your spiritual pilgrimage.
See Luke 13:23 And a certain man said to him: Lord, are they few that are saved? But he said to them:
13:24 Strive to enter by the narrow gate: for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter and shall not be able.
13:25 But when the master of the house shall be gone in and shall shut the door, you shall begin to stand without; and knock at the door, saying: Lord, open to us. And he answering, shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are.
Matthew Chapter7:13 “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.
7:14 “How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!”
Quotes from Pope Pius IX regarding No Salvation Outside the Church
Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 ‑ 1878): "It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." (Denzinger 1647)
"It is a sin to believe there is salvation outside the Church!" (Quoted in, Our Glorious Popes)
"The Church is rich with heavenly doctrine […] sailing like a ship on the high seas of this world, preserving those who come to her safe and sound, while the world outside perishes." (Aeterni Patris)
"The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman: unique, the Chair founded on Peter [...] Outside her fold is to be found neither the True Faith nor eternal salvation, for it is impossible to have God for a Father if one has not the Church for a Mother." (Singulari Quidem)
"Let those who wish to be saved come to this pillar, to this foundation of Truth which is the Church [...] We will never spare Ourselves from any pains whatsoever [...] to bring back those who are ignorant and in error to this one and only way of Truth and Salvation. Moreover, let all those who oppose Us remember that heaven and earth will pass away, but that not one of Christ's words can pass away, nor can anything be changed in the doctrine which the Catholic Church has received from Jesus Christ to preserve, to protect, and to preach." (Ubi Primum)
"Neither sanctity nor salvation can be found outside the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church." (cf. Racolta 626)
"In our times many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of indifference of religions. But quite of late, we shudder to say it, certain men have not hesitated to slander Us by saying that we share in their folly and favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind, as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from the Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new atrocious injustice that is done to us." (Allocution to the Cardinals, December 17, 1847)
"I condemn again that most pernicious error, in which certain Catholics are living, who are of the opinion that those who live in error and have not the True Faith, and are separated from Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting. Now this opinion is most contrary to the Catholic Faith, as is evident from the plain words of Christ: "If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican." (Mt. 13:17).; "He that believeth not, shall be condemned." (Mt. 16:16).; "He that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." (Lk. 10:16).; "He that does not believe, is
already judged." (Jn. 3:18). It is of Faith ["de fide," i.e., a dogma of the Faith which one must believe for salvation] that, as there is but one God, so also there is but one Faith, and one baptism. To go beyond this in our inquires is to be impious." (Allocution, December 9, 1854)
"It is not without sorrow that we have learned another not less pernicious error, which has been spread in several parts of Catholic countries, and have been inbibed by many Catholics, who are of the opinion that all those who are not at all members of the True Church of Christ, can be saved. Hence, they often discuss the question concerning the future fate and condition of those who die without having professed the Catholic Faith, and give the most frivolous reasons in support of their wicked opinion." (Nostis Et Nobiscum December. 8, 1849)
"We must mention and condemn again that most pernicious error, which has been imbibed by certain Catholics, who are of the opinion that those people who live in error and have not the True Faith, and are separated from Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting. Now this opinion is most contrary to the Catholic Faith, as is evident from the plain words of our Lord, (Mt. 28:17; Mk.16:16; Lk. 10:16; Jn. 3:18), as also from the words of St. Paul, (Tit. 3:10), and of St. Peter (2 Pet. 2:1). To entertain opinions contrary to this Catholic Faith is to be an impious wretch." (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore Aug. 10, 1863)
"We therefore again reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all and every one of these perverse opinions and doctrines, and it is Our absolute will and command that all sons of the Catholic Church shall hold as reprobated, proscribed, and condemned. It belongs to our Apostolic office to rouse your Episcopal zeal and watchfulness to do all in your power to banish from the minds of the people such impious and pernicious opinions which lead to indifference of religion, which we behold spreading more and more, to the ruin of souls. Oppose all your energy and zeal to these errors and employ zealous priests to impugn and annihilate them, and to impress very deeply upon the minds and hearts of the faithful the great dogma of our most holy religion, that salvation can be had only in the Catholic Faith. Often exhort the clergy and the faithful to give thanks to God for the great gift of the Catholic Faith." (Allocution, Dec 9, 1854)
"We have, therefore, deemed it our duty to make strong, vigorous, and uncompromising presentation of the great and fundamental Truth, the very fence and barrier of the True Religion, "OUT OF THE CHURCH THERE IS POSITIVELY NO SALVATION" against those soft, weak, timid, liberalizing Catholics, who labor to explain away all points of Catholic Faith offensive to non‑Catholics, and to make it appear that there is no question of life and death, of heaven and hell, involved in the difference between us and the Protestants.” (ibid)
"It is necessary that you inculcate this salutary teaching in the souls of those who exaggerate the power of human reason to such a point that they dare, by its power, to investigate and explain the mysteries themselves, than which nothing is more foolish, nothing more insane. Strive to call them back from such a perversity of mind, explaining indeed that nothing was granted to men by God's Providence more excellent than the authority of the divine faith, that this faith is to us like a torch in the darkness, that it is the leader that we follow to Life, that it is absolutely necessary for salvation, since "without faith it is impossible to please God," and "he that believeth not shall be condemned (Mark 16, 16)."" (Singulari Quadam)
I Vatican Council, A.D. 1870: (D. 1791): "Moreover, although the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the intellect, nevertheless, no one can "assent to the preaching of the gospel" as he must to attain salvation, "without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all a sweetness in consenting to and believing in the truth." [... (D. 1793):] Since without faith it is impossible to please God, no one is justified without it, nor will anyone attain eternal life unless he perseveres to the end in it. Moreover, in order that we may satisfactorily perform the duty of embracing the true faith and of continuously persevering in it, God, through His only-begotten Son, has instituted the Church, and provided it with clear signs of His institution, so that it can be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word. [... (D. 1833):] The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the right faith." (Ex Cathedra)
"The true Church is one, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman; unique: the Chair founded on Peter by the Lord's words; outside her fold is to be found neither the true faith nor eternal salvation, for it is impossible to have God for Father if one has not the Church for Mother, and it is in vain that one flatters oneself on belonging to the Church, if one is separated from the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded. There could be no greater crime, no more detestable injury than opposition to Christ, than the rending of the Church purchased and engendered in His divine Blood, than the furious attacks of pernicious discord against the peaceful and single-minded people of God, to the detriment of evangelical charity." (Source?)
The following three propositions are absolutely condemned as errors: (D1716): "In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation." (D1717): "We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ." (D1718): "Protestantism is nothing else than a different form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is possible to serve God as well as in the Catholic Church." (Syllabus of Errors)
see http://www.unitypublishing.com/Newsletter/SavedCatholics.htm.
The Fewness of those saved
... Leonard of Port Maurice OFM (AD 1751). ... The second is more speculative, in which St.
Leonard advances the proposition, which I have not infrequently heard, (and ...
www.catholicapologetics.info/fewsave.htm - 31k - Cached - Similar pages
“The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.”
I should also call your attention to highly relevant comments in the same pope’s allocution Singulari Quadam (note the almost identical name), dated December 9, 1854:
"It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand,it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is [1Jn 3:2] shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice. But as long as we dwell on earth, encumbered with this soul-dulling, mortal body, let us tenaciously cling to the Catholic doctrine that there is one God, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5). To proceed with further inquiry is contrary to divine law.
Nevertheless, as charity demands, let us pray continually for the conversion to Christ of all nations everywhere. Let us devote ourselves to the salvation of all men as far as we can, for the hand of the Lord is not shortened [Is 59:1]. The gifts of heavenly grace will assuredly not be denied to those who sincerely want and pray for refreshment by the divine light. These truths need to be fixed deeply in the minds of the faithful so that they cannot be infected with doctrines tending to foster the religious indifferentism which We see spreading widely, with growing strength, and with destructive effect upon souls."
This of course is repeated by Pope Pius in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, quoted above in post #12.
Finally, I invite you to consider what Saint Augustine has to say on the matter, at the start of his 43rd Epistle:
“The Apostle Paul hath said: "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself."(2) But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics."
In closing, I thank you for your kind wishes, and extend the same to you
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.
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 the 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, the 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.
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
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 20:28).
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.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency's most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.
>>You are very naive about heavy metal music<<
No, I can rattle off 100 bands which *are* satanic.
>>where you a fan of it at one time?<<
Not really. I liked some pop metal, like Bon Jovi. I thought Guns and Roses were brilliant enough, that I was displeased I couldn't be a fan of theirs because of their sicko stylistic themes.
>>The insertion is right on the mark and Satanists use images like that.<<
No, Satanists use images which look similar to that. That image is lifted out of its context; I can show you a multitude of Heavy Metal covers which don't happen to look similar to that. And that's missing the point anyway: The insertion was wrong because it was using a comic-book cover to represent the entirety of Heavy Metal music. It wasn't even a music magazine; it was a comic book!
>>"Satan uses..." "He wants...." "...and it is evil"<<
Yes. There have been times when Satan has used Free Republic to draw me away from my work. But that doesn't mean FR is Satanic. Anything not devoted to submission to God's will can be used for evil; but "Satanic" refers not to that which may be evil, but that which exists to worship Satan. And I do have to acknowledge that when modern Satanists do wish to create music, they often use Heavy Metal because a major theme is alienation and decadence.
Likewise, many Satanists use fantasy and science-fiction genres of literature. That doesn't mean that fantasy and science fiction are, as a whole, Satanic. C.S. Lewis, Ray Bradbury, and J.R.R. Tolkein are wonderful writers. But believe me, I've bumped into several Satanic and nihilistic sci-fi and fantasy writers!
>>Since rock music seeks redemption by way of liberation from .personality and its responsibility,<<
This is why Satanists use rock music as a genre to infiltrate: It was developped as a form of rebellion. But what to one generation was the sound of rebellion becomes to another generation the status quo.
Heavy Metal (unlike many fantasy stuff you have mentioned -Tolkein's Lord of the Ring) is a tool of the devil's. Heavy Metal's music is part of the kingdom of Satan. You listed to it and Heavy Metal is bad. I sounds like you understand that now. People change. When you listen to things they fill your mind. The Christian should read and expose himself to things in conformity with God.
Philippians 4:8 “For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline: think on these things.”
The picture that was posted was bad it really doesn’t matter if it was directly from a Satanic group or a silly comic book. It is gross and immature, ungodly and sexual and you miss the point.
Mr. Guimaraez who posted this on his site was not trying to get an emotional reaction as you suggest- the man who drew it was. Heavy Metal Music tries to appeal to the concupiscence in people- the animalistic demonic spirituality which seeks to destroy man and drag him down into Hell. We Christians must behave like Christians and reject the demonic in our culture which is in Rock and roll which is really all about sex outside of marriage and drugs. If you want I can give you more qoutes even from the Beatles to show you they are not on God’s side but the evil one. This music is killing our children and I will not let my children listen to any of it. They are very happy not to.
I am not in any way connected to the ST. Benedict Center. However, the excommunication on Fr. Feeney was lifted and he did not have to recant any of his positions by Pope Paul VI (see below) who lifted the excommunication. The St. Benedict Center is not outside the Church either. Fr. Feeney had to recite the apostles creed to be regularized with the Church that is it. Fr. Feeny's teachings are not accepted by most people ‑ most people think everyone is going to heaven. Apparently Fr. Feeney's interpretation is also within the acceptable realm of Church teaching otherwise he would have been made to correct them when he was exonerated. They are acceptable within the realm of Catholic belief‑ you must have a problem with Pope Eugene the "I am not a Feeniete". Many Liberals use this invincible ignorance for every excuse to excuse themselves from inviting people into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is No Salvation. Reread the Council of Florence statements. I did give references for my citations with the exception of this one which I supply here “The true Church is one, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman; unique: the Chair founded on Peter by the Lord’’s words; outside her fold is to be found neither true faith nor eternal salvation, for it is impossible to have God for Father if one has not the Church for Mother, and it is in vain that one flatters oneself on belonging to the Church, if one is separated from the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded.”” (Singulari Quidem)
The 2nd below sitation is from an uncharitable anti traditional Catholic and even he admits Father Feeney was reconciled. He did not have to recant anything to be regularized. I also think that Archbishop Lefebvre will be exonerated.
In 1949, Father Leonard Feeney was condemned in a
> letter from the Holy
> Office to Archbishop Cushing. He was condemned for
> holding to the strict
> interpretation of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla
> Salus, whereas the Holy
> Office’’s letter taught a more liberal version of
this
> dogma, allowing for
> exceptions like implicit desire for membership in
the
> Catholic Church. He
> was not condemned for rejecting Baptism of Desire
and
> Baptism by Blood as
> substitutes for the Sacrament of Baptism for
> salvation (i.e., eternal
> happiness in Heaven after death) under certain
> precise conditions, as Father
> Feeney had rejected them openly only from 1952
> onwards. This letter was not
> signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, but by his Secretary,
> Cardinal > Marchetti-Selvaggiani. This letter did not appear in
> the Acta Apostolicae
> Sedis, which should have been the case. Hence, the
> doctrine contained in the
> letter favouring the liberal interpretation of the
> dogma in question cannot
> be considered to be promulgated as such by the Holy
> See. Shockingly, the
> usual source for the Decree is The American
> Ecclesiastical Review, which is
> nothing compared to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
> In 1953, Father Feeney was excommunicated for
> disobedience and not for
> doctrinal reasons. When he was summoned to Rome, Fr
> Feeney insisted on
> knowing the reason for doing so, before proceeding.
> Since Rome did not
> (could not?) give him an official reason, he did not
> obey the summons. He
> did nothing that would have entailed an
> excommunication. However, a Decree
> excommunicating him was issued from the Holy Office,
> bearing only the
> signature of a Notary (not even a Cardinal) in the
> name of the Pope, and not
> bearing the Seal, which made things highly
> suspicious.
> Hence, it is not difficult to see why Pope Paul VI
> had Father Feeney
> reconciled without requiring him to renounce his
> doctrinal position on
> August 23, 1972. In fact, from the facts given so
> far, one could say that
> Father Feeney had not been excommunicated in the
> first place. Matt1618, you
> have always proclaimed yourself to be a promoter and
> defender of submission
> to the Pope.
> Such being the case, no one can condemn as heretical
> the doctrinal position
> of Father Feeney, since the Supreme Pontiff and the
> Holy Office, before and
> after Vatican II, never condemned Father Feeney’’s
> doctrinal position as
> heretical. Matt1618, TO FOLLOW YOUR LINE OF ARGUMENT,
> you have behaved as if
> you are the Magisterium –– similar to that of the
> Protestants.
===
Martin Beckman
Catholicsource ....
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Woods/2495/Default.htm
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
In light of the Holy Father's confirmation of Lefebvre's schismatic status, many traditionalists would respond positively to the Holy Father's invitation to reconcile their situation. In North America, the process of reconciliation had been facilitated even before the schism ensued, when on the tenth anniversary of Fr. Leonard Feeney's death one of the more sizable communities he had founded formally regularized their canonical situation with the Church.(89) Unlike Fr. Feeney who was reconciled with the Church under the pontificate of Paul VI in 1972,(90) and who remains a popular folk hero among many traditionalists today, Lefebvre died under the censure of excommunication without having reconciled with the Church.
Yet in the period after Lefebvre's excommunication many of his followers still dispute, both
This is his followers side of the story. I am not a follower of Fr. Feeney although I think he was a much maligned priest but I do not believe that he was a schismatic and I think that Archbishop Lefebvre will be exhaunerated as well.
See www.catholicism.org/TTAS/chapter_3.htm - 22k
Chapter 3
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.* 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."**
* According to the Catholic Dictionary, a Protocol is a "preliminary memorandum in negotiations, serving as basis for final agreement." ** 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.
Public reaction to the initial publication of parts of the Protocol letter in The Pilot of September 3, 1949, was predictable. The Worcester Telegram, for instance, ran a typical headline: Vatican Rules Against Hub Dissidents Similar headlines and follow-up stories in papers throughout the country produced not one protesting "peep" from the chanceries of the United States. 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! What a scandal to Catholics and non-Catholics alike! And what proof that this severe weakness in doctrinal teaching existed in the seminaries of America since at least the later decades of the nineteenth century! 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 again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your 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. 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. 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. In other words, just as in the sacrament of Confession, the power of the keys is not arbitrary. It is a prescribed power, which can only have efficacy if certain conditions are met. And those conditions depend on the sincerity of the recipient. God will not forgive the impenitent, even if such a one confesses his sins truthfully. And God will not withdraw His grace from one who is unjustly, though —— in foro externo —— validly, excommunicated. And, finally, God is not bound by any other word than His own Word. 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 Father Leonard Feeney never doubted for one moment that he was doing God’’s will in all the actions he took in defense of the salvation dogma. Let the hierarchy do what they will, this priest of Our Lady was ready and willing to follow her Son to his own crucifixion outside the walls of the city. Like Saint Peter and Saint Paul, Father knew that he too could be cast out of the synagogue. An excommunication, even one passed by a pope, is not protected by the charism of infallibility. It is a disciplinary power that can be, and at times has been, abused. 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. It was sent to the Holy Father through the then Pro-Secretary of State for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (later Pope Paul VI). It read, in part, as follows: 2. Because the first interest of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is the preservation of the Faith, we have been reluctant to make any formal representations to the Holy See concerning any secondary matters relating to our activities. Your Excellency is well aware that the first obligation of every Catholic is to defend with his lifeblood every doctrine of his Holy Faith. In doing this, he has the assurance both of his own salvation, and even if persecuted by fellow Catholics, of his ultimate vindication by the Church. The lives of the saints amply demonstrate this. Many of the saints were vilified, interdicted, excommunicated, and even martyred by those of their own Faith. We refer specifically to Saints Athanasius, Ignatius of Constantinople, Alphonsus Ligouri, John the Baptist de la Salle, Thomas of Hereford, Thomas a’’Becket, Joan of Arc, John Fisher and Thomas More. While our duty is clear, and we are encouraged in its performance by the example of these great saints, and also while we have the unfailing consolation of knowing that we will never be abandoned by our Holy Mother the Church, it is necessary in the interest of justice and for the avoidance of grave scandal to communicate with the Holy See formally and directly concerning many matters which concern us. 3. Foremost, therefore, in our minds, is the matter of the purported decree of excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney. 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. But all the charges made in the letter were amply verified by the use made of the "excommunication" in the press. To give one example, a widely circulated dispatch dated March 1, 1953, originating with the National Catholic Welfare Conference, had this to say: The excommunication decree was issued February 13, and officially published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis on February 16, which gives a full review of the former Jesuit’’s case and of his recalcitrance in refusing to accept the warnings of the Holy See. . . The fact is that neither the decree of February 13, nor the Acta of February 16, contains the slightest hint of a "review of the former Jesuit’’s case." But the press had transmitted to the world the very message which the modernists wanted transmitted: It is unwise to profess the doctrine "Outside the Church there is no salvation." And the press also unanimously agreed that Rome had spoken and that the case had been disposed of. Thus, the forces of Anti-Christ proved their ascendancy in the world of today by placing the most important dogma of the Church under a cloud, using for this purpose the very machinery of Holy Church herself. |
|
|
|
|
|
To Chapter 4 |
|
About Us | Doctrine | Devotion | Education | Apologetics |
|||
|
<![if !vml]> |
Saint Benedict Center |
<![if !vml]> |
|
Chapter 4The "Reconciliation"
|
After the vilification of our Order and the "excommunication" of Father Feeney, we were forced into some twenty years of "exile." In 1958 we moved to Still River, Massachusetts, in the Diocese of Worcester. Sister Catherine died in 1968. It was now 1972. During those years the forces of liberalism had made enormous headway inside the Church. Nevertheless, they still clearly considered our Order a serious obstacle. For, about this time we were becoming uneasy over indications that secret negotiations between certain ranking prelates and several members of the Order had been taking place. When the alarming rumors reached Father Feeney’’s ears, he repeatedly forbade any members to have any dealings with the hierarchy without his expressed approval. The willingness, of what had grown by now to be a majority of the Brothers, to establish a reconciliation with the hierarchy greatly disturbed the loyal community of sisters living in Saint Anne’’s House, and the by now minority faction of loyal brothers still residing with the others in Saint Théérèèse House. Brother Hugh found the climate of betrayal too much to bear. In 1972, along with several younger brothers, he vacated Saint Théérèèse House and, on the same property, built a new home for any of the brothers who wished to continue the doctrinal battle without compromise. Father Feeney, too worn down by ill health to join them, and too fatherly to admit at this stage that any of his spiritual children would actually betray him, remained at Saint Théérèèse House. Brother Francis, who initially had given his own home in Cambridge to help house the once indefatigable young apostles of our Crusade, wished Brother Hugh well, but insisted on staying with the Brothers of Saint Théérèèse House, where he hoped to rekindle any sparks of loyalty he could find. That hope, however, was sadly defused. It became clear that he and Brother Hugh would have to continue on alone. Father Feeney blessed them both with the words: "Do whatever it takes to save the Crusade!" By August 23, 1972, it was evident that Father had been disobeyed and that our suspicions had been well founded. On that day our Crusade was insidiously compromised by the disloyal faction. For that was the day on which Auxiliary Bishop Lawrence Riley of Boston, accompanied by Father Richard J. Shmaruk, quietly arrived at Saint Théérèèse House. Father did not know the purpose of their visit, and no members of the other houses at the Center were aware that it was taking place. The members of the House, including Father, met with their guests in the spacious front room. To edify his visitors, Father had all members recite, in unison, a memory drill on the important dates in the history of the world. Then, by prearrangement, one of the sisters suggested that they recite the creeds of the Church, one of which is the Athanasian Creed. Father enthusiastically agreed. And presto! The unsuspecting Father Feeney was "back in the Church!" Now, the Athanasian Creed begins with these words: Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly . . . So, Father was "back in the Church" by professing the very doctrine for which he was "put out!" Or at least the preliminary step in that direction had been taken. But, of course, this mysterious "reconciliation" was every bit as spurious as the earlier "excommunication." One year later, we learned that all had been approved and that it would soon be publicized that Father Feeney had "returned to the fold," evidently having renounced his former stand. For this reason, we published on September 17, 1973, and widely distributed, a message from Father Feeney and the Center to our fellow Catholics. It reiterated our firm position on the doctrine and closed, saying: . . . Some individuals, with no authorization to represent our Institute, are now seeking by devious means to compromise our Crusade. We wish to inform our spiritual fathers and our fellow Catholics there can be no compromise. We still profess the same Faith, out of which no one at all can be saved, as we did a quarter of a century ago. Six months later, in March of 1974, the defection from the Crusade was finally consummated by the disloyal faction when its compromising members individually made a formal submission to Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester. Press releases announcing the supposed reconciliation of Father Feeney and the Center subsequently appeared on September 26, 1974. That was one year after Father emphatically denounced those who were seeking to compromise our Crusade through their devious machinations with the liberal hierarchy. One Bishop’’s "Dead Horse" News accounts concerning these events repeatedly referred to letters from Rome, purportedly written in connection with our case. Normally, such correspondence should have been sent to Father Feeney as the Superior of the Order. But Father had received nothing more than rumors. He therefore authorized two loyal members to obtain whatever documentation was available from Bishop Flanagan, Ordinary of the Worcester Diocese. Brother Francis and Brother Hugh (since deceased) called on the Bishop. When asked the purpose of their visit, the following discussion ensued: Brother Hugh: We were sent by Father. We read in the papers that letters have been sent from Rome in connection with our case. We would like, if possible, to see all the documents that pertain to Saint Benedict Center and to Father Feeney. Bishop Flanagan: Let me first explain to you how this whole thing started and how I got involved in it. There was a bishops’’ meeting about two years ago, and Cardinal Medeiros mentioned that he would like to see the Father Feeney case disposed of. He was anxious to send a statement to Rome saying that Father’’s health was not too good and that he would hate to have him die apparently outside the Church. I expressed my enthusiastic approval of this policy. At this point, let us give the law and tradition of the Church in such matters, in the classic expression of Pope Saint Innocent I, who stated: "Communion once broken off cannot be renewed until the persons concerned give proof that the reasons for which communion was broken off are no longer operative." We continue Bishop Flanagan’’s remarks: We sent a statement to Rome. The response came back: "Yes, by all means." The only requirement was that Father should make a profession of Faith. Bishop Lawrence Riley then went to the Center with Father Shmaruk. Father was very happy to say all the Creeds that you have. He was willing to recite every single Creed. And that was all that was required. And, now, is there any possibility for everyone to get together? Would you be willing also to do what the group at Saint Théérèèse House have already done? Brother Hugh: We intend to come out this year stronger than ever in defense of the Doctrine. Would you, as our Ordinary, oppose that? Bishop Flanagan: That Doctrine is now a dead horse. Let’’s be practical. The whole spirit after Vatican II is against it. You are talking about a dead horse. That thing is dead. Let’’s bury it. Brother Francis: We feel now more than ever the necessity of upholding the Doctrine, precisely because of what has been happening to the Church since Vatican II. Brother Hugh: If we come out stronger than ever and spread the Doctrine throughout the country, would you be against that? What agreement have the Brothers of Saint Théérèèse House made? Bishop Flanagan: The understanding is that they will not talk about it. The understanding is that it is a dead horse and we will forget all about it. Brother Hugh: As the Ordinary, would you do something about it? Bishop Flanagan: Well, as I said, the understanding is that they will not publicly talk about the Doctrine. There are other things in the Church we recommend very strongly. They can preach devotion to Mary. They can be a conservative group in the Church. We need a conservative group in the Church. Then the Bishop opened his folder and showed the documents. He could not provide copies to be brought to Father because of the confidential nature of the letters! One was from the Holy Office regarding Father, indicating that on account of his "age and infirmity" they were willing to lift the censures. The other document concerned the brothers of Saint Théérèèse House who were to be received back into the Church individually. Brother Hugh: What about Sister Catherine and the four brothers who have died? Did they die outside the Church? Bishop Flanagan: Oh, no. The only one excommunicated was Father Feeney. We don’’t quite know why it was done, but Father Feeney was on the record excommunicated nominatim. The most you could say of the rest was that they were under interdict. Notice that the account about the reconciliation says: ". . . from any censures they may have incurred." The phrasing was deliberate. Brother Francis: But why, then, did they have to make a profession of Faith? And why did they have to promise silence on a dogma defined ex cathedra by the popes? When the letter of Marchetti-Selvaggiani became known to us, we all —— including the group from Saint Théérèèse House —— signed a statement denouncing it as heretical and scandalous. Did they have to withdraw that statement? Bishop Flanagan: In the Church today a latitudinarian attitude prevails. Some are questioning the Real Presence, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, the Infallibility of the Pope, without being put out of the Church. Brother Francis: Is this the traditional concept of Catholic orthodoxy? You allow people to question the Trinity? We say that if we are truly in heresy, we should be excommunicated. We want to hold the Catholic Truth; we do not want to be one extreme balancing another. Are we Catholics or Hegelians? Bishop Flanagan: To return to the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter, it has become part of the teaching of the Church. You find it in Denzinger [a compilation of doctrinal documents of different grades of authority]. Brother Francis: The Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter is far below the authority of the doctrine it nullifies. The Holy Father spoke recently of something he called the "auto-demolition of the Church." Well, here is a perfect example of that abuse —— the use that was made of that scandalous document by the liberal theologians. In concluding, the Brothers told His Excellency that we of the Order are not conscious of having done anything that puts us outside the Church. Any gesture of submission on our part would only mean admission that we have been wrong in our doctrinal stand. We are faithful Catholics who have never done other than our duty to defend the Faith. We are obedient to all those who hold authority over us whenever they act within the bounds of that authority as constituted by God. This meeting took place on October 18, 1974. |
|
|
|
Back to Table of Contents |
|
To Chapter 5 |
|
About Us | Doctrine | Devotion | Education | Apologetics |
|||
|
|
Saint Benedict CenterEmail |
|
|
See
|
Invincible or Inculpable Ignorance Neither Saves nor Damns a Person. by Father Michael Müüller, C.Ss.R. Editor's Note: Because Catholic ... |
Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. "Invincible ignorance", says St. Thomas Aquinas, "is a punishment for sin". (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.) It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation.
But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation, is another. To maintain the latter would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin.
Hence Pius IX said "that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man, will, in His infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault."7
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
<![endif]>
<![endif]>