Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE  (Read 6458 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1297
  • Reputation: +603/-63
  • Gender: Male
    • TraditionalCatholic.net
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
« on: March 29, 2014, 04:53:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE

    From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.

    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 docuмents 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 docuмents 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 circuмstances 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.
    Omnes pro Christo


    Offline Binechi

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2318
    • Reputation: +512/-40
    • Gender: Male
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #1 on: March 29, 2014, 05:07:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :facepalm:


    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #2 on: March 29, 2014, 05:08:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There's a thread in General Discussion in which it's coming out that the most hostile enemies of the dogma EENS are all linked to the CMRI.

    JohnAnthonyMarie,
    Ambrose,
    Myrna,
    Emerentiana

    So far only SJB and LoT are not liked to CMRI.

    Not surprising from an organization that twice printed the article "The Salvation of Those Outside the Church".

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #3 on: March 29, 2014, 05:09:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, let me ask.  SBJ and LoT, do you also attend CMRI Masses?

    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1297
    • Reputation: +603/-63
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #4 on: March 29, 2014, 05:25:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am not affiliated officially with CMRI, so I do not speak for them.  I am very grateful for their existence.

    I was hoping we might talk about the letter.
    Omnes pro Christo


    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #5 on: March 29, 2014, 05:26:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
    I am not affiliated officially with CMRI, so I do not speak for them.  I am very grateful for their existence.

    I was hoping we might talk about the letter.


    Good for you for reposting the teaching of the Holy Office that was approved by the Pope.
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #6 on: March 29, 2014, 07:51:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
    I am not affiliated officially with CMRI, so I do not speak for them.  I am very grateful for their existence.

    I was hoping we might talk about the letter.


    Good for you for reposting the teaching of the Holy Office that was approved by the Pope.


    There's no proof that it was ever approved by Pius XII.  Pius XII did not sign it, nor did it appear in AAS.  According to Canon Law, its absence from AAS rendered it completely unauthentic and unofficial.  This was the same "Holy Office" that brought us Vatican II and about a decade later magically became apostate.  This was the same Pius XII who installed Bugnini and empowered his liturgical experimentations.  This was the same Pius XII who opened the door on evolution.  This was the same Pius XII who appointed most of the bishops that brought us the glory of Vatican II.  This was the same Pius XII who opened the door on evolution.  This was the same Pius XII who opened the door to birth control.  This was the same Pius XII who refused to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary according to the wishes of Our Lady.  This was the same Pius XII who refused to reveal the Third Secret as instructed to do so by Our Lady.  You mean that Pius XII?

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #7 on: March 29, 2014, 07:54:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
    I was hoping we might talk about the letter.


    Sure thing.  It's blatantly heretical.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #8 on: March 29, 2014, 08:03:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    There's a thread in General Discussion in which it's coming out that the most hostile enemies of the dogma EENS are all linked to the CMRI.

    JohnAnthonyMarie,
    Ambrose,
    Myrna,
    Emerentiana

    So far only SJB and LoT are not liked to CMRI.

    Not surprising from an organization that twice printed the article "The Salvation of Those Outside the Church".


    Mmmmm

    :scratchchin: And why that may be?....

    It seems that the sedevacantists CMRI are most vocal about defending BOD and Salvation Outside the Church. I wonder if they have an anti - "feeneyite" agenda in their CMRI Chapels or something like that. They seem almost irrationally passionate about defending BOD/Invincible Ignorance and undermining EENS.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #9 on: March 29, 2014, 08:18:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladi wrote:

    Quote
    There's no proof that it was ever approved by Pius XII.  


    Paragraph #3 of the Holy Office letter:

    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:

    Ladi wrote:

    Quote
    Pius XII did not sign it, nor did it appear in AAS.


    A signature of a Pope for docuмents are not necessary.  If you understood Roman law, and Church law which is built on that, you would know that.

    Quote
    According to Canon Law, its absence from AAS rendered it completely unauthentic and unofficial.  


    More made up unsupported assertions.  Let's see your proof.

    Quote
    This was the same "Holy Office" that brought us Vatican II and about a decade later magically became apostate.  


    Now your really acting like a Feeneyite by attacking the Holy Office.  Did this same Holy Office a decade later become apostate?  Let's see your proof.

    Quote
    This was the same Pius XII who installed Bugnini and empowered his liturgical experimentations.


    Did he empower Bugnini to do anything that was harmful to the liturgy?  Proof please?

    Quote
    This was the same Pius XII who opened the door on evolution.


    Last I checked Pius XII reassertion the authority of the magisterium over the evolution debate.

    Quote
    This was the same Pius XII who appointed most of the bishops that brought us the glory of Vatican II.


    What proof do you have that Pius XII knew that any of them were heretics?  State your case against these bishops using only evidence available from the 1950's.  If you can't, retract your unjust and uncharitable blather against Pius XII.  You will have to account for your words at judgment.  

    Quote
    This was the same Pius XII who opened the door to birth control.


    An outright lie.  Pope Pius XII reaffirmed clearly and emphatically Church teaching against birth control.  

    Quote
    This was the same Pius XII who refused to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary according to the wishes of Our Lady.

    Can you prove that Pope Pius XII knew that the consecration must include the world's bishops?  If so, let's see what you've got.

    Quote
    This was the same Pius XII who refused to reveal the Third Secret as instructed to do so by Our Lady.


    Do you understand his motivations?  Do you have any proof which wold support the idea that Pius XII's decision to not release the secret was of bad motivation?  Many believe the secret should be revealed in 1960, perhaps he might have though the same.

    Quote
     You mean that Pius XII?


    Yes I mean the much maligned holy Roman Pontiff Pius XII who is worthy only of respect love and loyalty from Catholics.  

    So many show their colors when unjustly and uncharitably they attack this good and holy Pope.
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7610
    • Reputation: +617/-404
    • Gender: Male
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #10 on: March 29, 2014, 08:58:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Any docuмent claiming that Pius XII censored Fr Feeney is a Fraud.  :reporter:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #11 on: March 29, 2014, 08:58:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This letter was not even published in Acts of the Apostolic See so it does not have any binding effect as an Official Church docuмent. This letter therefore is nothing more than the fallible opinion of a bishop.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #12 on: March 29, 2014, 09:07:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    This letter was not even published in Acts of the Apostolic See so it does not have any binding effect as an Official Church docuмent. This letter therefore is nothing more than the fallible opinion of a bishop.


    Wrong.  It was approved by the Pope and it was published so it is binding.  You are not free to disagree with the doctrinal teaching taught in this letter.
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #13 on: March 30, 2014, 05:55:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote from: Cantarella
    This letter was not even published in Acts of the Apostolic See so it does not have any binding effect as an Official Church docuмent. This letter therefore is nothing more than the fallible opinion of a bishop.


    Wrong.  It was approved by the Pope and it was published so it is binding.  You are not free to disagree with the doctrinal teaching taught in this letter.


    CANON LAW states that docuмents must appear in AAS in order to be official.  But you want it to be official and binding, so you say it is.  Of course, again, you hypocritically reject Vatican II, which was brought to you by the same people.  This letter was published by Cushing's diocesan rag and not any official or even quasi official Roman publication.  There was a CLAIM in the letter that it was approved, but there's no independent verification of this, and the nature of the approval (did Pius XII read the letter and approve every point?) are entirely unknown.  In fact, the approval was obviously given before said letter was written in that the letter itself mentions the "approval".  Cushing engineered this in coordination with some heretical buddy of his in the Holy Office.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    « Reply #14 on: March 30, 2014, 05:56:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Based on your own theology, Ambrose, you need to hold that the Holy See was vacated by Pius XII for heresy.