It is truly amazing how you can post this when the opening sentences praise the Cushing inspired Suprema Haec sacra after it being so thoroughly discredited so many times, to which I will add another one from Fr. Wathen.



The second quotation which is put forth by The Compromisers
of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation is know as Protocol 122/49. It
bears the signature of one Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, Secretary
of the Holy Office, and was issued with the approval of Pope Pius
XII. It is dated August 8, 1949, and concerns the celebrated "Boston
Heresy Case," in which the "defendants" were Fr. Leonard Feeney
and a number of lay men and women of St. Benedict Center in
Boston. We quote the following excerpt as it is given in Denzinger,
and interlard our comments. We remind the reader that, despite its
weighty content and eminent usefulness, the Enchiridion is not an
official publication of the Holy See, but a private, Catholic publication.
Its contemporary editions show evidence of Modernist editorship.'

"Among the tenets which the Church has always taught and will
never cease to teach is that infallible doctrine which is contained in
the dictum, 'Outside the Church there is no salvation."

"However, ["tarnen;" immediately, the negative conjunction!]
this dogma must be understood in the sense in which the Church itself
understands it. For our Savior did not grant the explanation of the
truths of the deposit of faith to private interpretation, but restricted
this prerogative to the magisterium of the Church."

Our comment: In that this statement was issued as a papal
pronouncement, it cannot be read as a qualification, an elucidation, or
an amendment of the defide definitions of the Popes, with which we
are here concerned. As was said earlier, all pronouncements on this
dogma, from whatever source, must be evaluated in terms of these
definitions. All which are prejudicial of them are by that fact condemned.

This statement begins by establishing a position for itself which
is supposed to place it beyond the reach of controversy, suggesting, as
it does, that it is a pronouncement of the the Sacred Magisterium of
the Church. Insofar as it dilutes the Dogma of Faith, it opposes the
Sacred Magisterium.

'Therefore, first of all, the Church teaches that there is a question
here of a most strict precept of Jesus Christ. For He expressly
imposed upon His Apostles the duty of teaching all nations the observance
of every commandment which He had imparted to them.
Among His commands by no means the least important place is
occupied by His requirement that we be incorporated through baptism
into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and adhere to
Him and His Vicar, through whom He visibly governs the Church on
earth. Hence, no one will be saved who knows that the Church was
divinely instituted through Christ and refuses to submit to it or denies
obedience to the Roman Pontiff.

"For not only did the Savior give it as a precept that all nations
should enter the Church, but He also established the Church as the
sole means of salvation, without [sine] which no one can enter the
kingdom of heavenly glory."

The Latin text reads: "Ecciesiam medium . . . sine quo"-"the
Church as the means without which", which is something altogether
different from extra quod- outside of which. We mention this because
this expression is another deceptive obliquity which is often
employed. The implication is that the grace of salvation flows out of
the Church and reaches those remaining outside.

"It is not always necessary that one be incorporated as a member
of the Church actually [reapse] to attain eternal salvation, but it is
required that one at least be joined by wish or desire [voto et
desiderio]." (Italics ours).

This is not an explanation of the dictum quoted in the beginning,
but a clear contradiction of it. (N.B.: It should be taken as a rule of
thumbs that the more words one has to use to explain something, the
more certain we may be that he really means to submerge it.)

"This wish, furthermore, need not always be explicit, such as is
had by catechumens; when a man labors in invincible ignorance, God
accepts also his implicit wish, as a sort of vow [nuncupatum], because
this is contained in that good disposition of soul whereby he seeks to
conform his will to the Will of God."

How can anyone presume to know that "God accepts . . . his
implicit wish?" This is purest subjectivism; there exists no magisterial
pronouncement to confirm this.

Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani wrote these lines during the
reign of Pope Pius XII. One of that Pope's achievements was the
Encyclical, Mystici Corporis, which treats of the Doctrine of the Mystical
Body of Christ. Therein the Pontiff lucidly distinguishes between
those who are incorporated in the Church as members, and those who
cleave to the Church by a kind of wish. ". . . Actually only those who
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." (No. 22). Toward the
end of this same Letter, with greatest benevolence, His Holiness
invites to the Church those who are not in union with it; he reminds
them that through an unconscious desire and longing, they have a certain
relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, which is to
say, as every man in the depths of his soul yearns for and needs to
possess and see God, he most certainly yearns for the Church as the
only means for the fulfillment of this primordial exigency. The Pope
by no means excludes these individuals from salvation, though, in
another place, he asserts that such is their condition that "they remain
deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can be
enjoyed only in the Catholic Church." (No. 103).

Though the Encyclical here referred to contains many inspiring
passages, in that it fails to base itself on the doctrine, Extra
Ecciesiam, and fails to state this doctrine uncompromisingly, it fails
tragically, therefore, in one of its essential purposes. As Archbishop
Hay has indicated above, and as we shall see further on, the Doctrine
of the Mystical Body can have no meaning whatsoever outside the
context of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation.

His Holiness says that non-Catholics "cannot be sure of their
salvation" (outside the Church). This is another attenuation. The
doctrine is that they have no hope of salvation whatsoever if they die
outside the Fold of Christ.

Pope Pius speaks as if the many "heavenly gifts and helps which
can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church" are luxuries and
nonessential accessories of the spiritual life, when, in point of fact,
only the Church provides the soul with the means, i.e., the Sacraments,
sanctifying grace, and union with Christ, without which salvation
is totally impossible.

We must conclude, therefore, that Pope Pius XII himself speaks
equivocally, and as a result bears no little responsibility for Cardinal
Marchetti-Selvaggiani's conciliation. Of this we shall have more to
say in Part III.

If anyone think us impertinent thus to pass judgment on the
saintly Pontiff, we must refer him to that other place where Pope Pius
alludes to the Dogma of Faith: In his encyclical, Humani Generis,
which by itself is powerful enough to refute and expose the pretensions
of the Conciliar Church completely, says this: "Some think that
they are not bound by the doctrine proposed a few years ago in Our
Encyclical Letter, bearing upon the sources of 'revelation,' which
teaches that the mystical body of Christ and the Church are one and
the same. Some reduce to an empty formula the necessity of belonging
to the true Church in order to attain eternal salvation."

Can anyone deny that The Protocol we are studying here does
exactly that, as do all The Equivocators, who find the true doctrine
too strong for their brittle faith, namely, reduce it to "an empty formula?"

To return to Protocol 122/49:

This is the way Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani speaks of Mystici Corporis:

"With admirable foresight [quibus verbis providentibus], he
[Pope Pius XII] reproaches those who would exclude from eternal
salvation all who belong to the Church implicitly on the one hand, and
those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally in every
religion, on the other. But it must not be imagined that just any kind
of vague desire to enter the Church suffices for salvation. For it is
required that the yearning [votum] for the Church be informed by
charity; moreover, this implicit desire can have no effect unless the
individual be filled with supernatural faith."

The Cardinal suggests that the Encyclical was timely in that it
prepared the Church against the "Boston Heresy Case." In point of
fact, one of the most serious omissions of Pope Pius XII was that of
not coming to the defense of Fr. Feeney, who did nothing more than
propound the traditional Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation. As a result,
since that time, in most quarters, the heresy has been regarded as the
true doctrine and the true doctrine heretical and excessively rigorous.

The paragraph above is a pathetic and indefensible effort to
retake the ground which has previously been surrendered. He says:
"just any kind of vague desire" ("quodcuм que Votum") is insufficient
to effect one's implicit membership in the Church. But an implicit
desire is a quodcuмque votum!

He says this Votum must be informed by perfect charity. Perfect
charity is the love of God primarily for His own sake. We are
prompted to ask: How does one know when one possesses such
charity? The doctrine maintains that the evidence for it in one's soul
is one's accepting the Faith and entering the Church. If one does not
do this, it is vaporous speculation to suggest that one possesses it.

He says: "This implicit desire" ("Votum") will effect nothing,
unless one has supernatural faith. We ask: How can one have supernatural
faith in that of which one is invincibly ignorant? It is impossible


To summarize our case against this argument:

1. Because this "Protocol" is a veritable passel of contradictions,
it is a mystery how anyone would not be embarrassed to present it as
an argument to support a doctrine of our Faith. It is a classic example
of what Fr. Feeney had in mind when he remarked: ". . . The Liberal
first admits the dogma to be true, calls it a 'basic principle,' an
'inconntestable axiom' . . . or some such phrase. He then proceeds to
present the dogma in a sense that makes . . . it utterly meaningless."

2. The reader has only to consider how an intelligent and honest
enquirer would regard this paragraph of Cardinal Marchetti-
Selvaggiani. He would conclude that the maxim "Outside the Church
there is no salvation" has neither truth nor force, and its purpose is
that of an attention-grabber, such as advertisers use. A little further
reading and one perceives that the "big bargain" or "great value" is
really nothing to get excited about.

3. By the time the Cardinal has finished his commentary, any enquirer
would be satisfied that he himself qualified for salvation, since
he is an easy-going sort of fellow, who believes in Jesus Christ as
much as other people, and doesn't ever harm his neighbor. He would
gladly join the Catholic Church if he could see any need for it; but
this official Catholic statement indicates that it is no urgent matter.
We are able to present an even better evaluation of this
statement, which by now is given as the Church's official last word on
the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation, on Fr. Feeney, and the whole
"Boston Heresy Case," and is to be found not only in the the various
editions of the Enchiridion, but even in theology texts published after
1949. It would seem that contemporary Dogma professors are
incapable of reading this docuмent critically.

This is a letter written by Fr. Feeney to Pope Paul VI:


Most Holy Father:

We, your faithful children of St. Benedict Center,
wish to reiterate our petition to His Holiness, Pius XII, asking.
that Your Holiness reaffirm the dogma . . . "Outside the
Church there is no salvation" [and] condemn the new heresies
which seek to destroy Its meaning....

We place before the attention of Your Holiness a fact
which can no longer be denied or doubted: namely, that a
notorious docuмent, purporting to come from the Sacred Congregation
of the Holy Office, and taking the form of a letter
from Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani to Archbishop Cushing of
Boston, dated August 8, 1949, and identified as Protocol Letter
122/49, has scandalized the entire world by making people
believe and say that a thrice-defined dogma of Faith has now
been officially repudiated.

This docuмent was obtained and promulgated under
most suspicious circuмstances. Its defects as regards proper
canonical procedure have been duly denounced by us in
several official communications to the Holy See...

Our position with regard to this docuмent remains
unchanged: we denounce it as heretical and scandalous in the
highest degree. Our position is now confirmed by its fruits:
religious consequences which have reached historic magnitude.
We denounce the Protocol Letter 122/49 as the first
act of (to borrow a term from Your Holiness) the "autodemolition
of the Church."

...We beg, therefore, of Your Holiness, not to delay any
longer in illuminating the world with the Apostolic doctrine on
salvation.
-(signed) Father Leonard Feeney, M.I.C.M. .