OK--I do not want to get into a discussion on 'Feeneyism' but one thing that shaped my thinking in this respect was reading CG Clarke's Loyola's And Cabots book. Without getting into a disputation on validity of types of Baptism or indeed even bringing it up, the book basically says that what Fr. Feeney needed was basically what it says in the last 2 sentences of Unam Sanctum--which was even then nothing new. That we must remain loyal to the Roman Pontiff in order to insure salvation; this is the same thing as saying there is no salvation outside the Catholic Religeon(Church).

Apparently a declaration of this Dogmatic Article Of Faith could not be procured from Pius XII.

My understanding is that there is a book called Aftermath of Boston Heresy Case by Potter, but I have not been able to obtain it. Even the St Benedict Center does not offer the book for sale.

Has anyone read the article Illuminati and The Catholic Church by Terminiello? It is difficult to read but probably still avail from omnicbc. This is where I first heard the fantastic charges that Pius XII, Pius XI, Card Belmonte, Della Chiesa and Card
Rampolla were all Illuminati inductees(Judaics) of various descriptions.

After reading the article 5 times, it is my opinion that while I don't agree w/ all of the authors conclusions, he is never the less sincere--this is of great value in a historian. Kertzer is another sincere historian that I hardly agree w/ a good # of his conclusions.

roscoe,

It is not, imo, clear enough.  What is your beef with Pius XII?  That he would not issue a dogmatic statement that reaffirmed what had already been dogmatically declared three times?  So what?  Should Pius have catered to Fr. Feeney?  Certainly not.  Fr. Feeney was fighting against a real and present error, but his weapons were also erroneous (or, we might say, the way in which he wielded them was incorrect).  It is the classic atmosphere for heresy where one teaching is being proclaimed in an unbalanced way so as to endanger a complementary truth, so the "champions" combat this problem by overemphasizing the complementary teaching that is in danger of being snuffed out.  Both involve an overemphasis of one of two harmonious truths, leading to disaster.

I own the book you mention.  It does not "save" Fr. Feeney, etc.  

As for your hole, I doubt you will crawl back into it - not for more than a moment or two, anyway.

While it certainly is commendable to fight Communism, there are people like JE Hoover, Roy Cohn and others who are only doing so from obscue motives. And Communism can mean different things to different people. Example--Trotskyite neo-cons will fight Stalinists. Ciao

(sorry SC) On pg 214 of Popes In The Modern World, Sugrue quotes Pius XII---" For centuries the judaics have been most unjustly(?) treated and despised. It is time they were treated with justice and humanity. God wills it and the Church wills it. St Paul tells us that Judaics are our brothers . Instead of being treated as strangers, they should be welcomed as friends". Sounds pretty ecuмenical to me.

Do I have to remind this Forum that the Babylonian тαℓмυd describes the Most Holy Virgin  as a'whore' and says that Jesus is roasting in Hell in a pot of semen and feces?

Just who does this Pacelli think he is? I would like to thank GV for bringing this all up as I am now beginning yo seriously wonder if Pius XII may well be an anti-pope.  

 

Think about this Forum--in the above statement by Pius XII(12?) the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church is instructing his flock to be not merely acquaintences but FRIENDS WITH OBSTINATE HERETICS. This is the height of absurdity and I can assure you that Popes like Paul IV would have thrown this cardinal in the dungeon of Castle San Angelo real fast.

It was a most  unfortunate mistake of Pauls to confine Card Morone, but the Pope was more or less in afrenzy w/ the Reformation(Revolution) breaking out all over the place.

Correction--Paul VI should read Paul IV.