The doctrinal part letter was from the Holy Office with Pius XII's signature. Cushing did not write the doctrinal synopsis himself. So whether he was a heretic or not is irrelevant.

Please stay off my threads if you're just going to act retarded due to the fact that heresy has corrupted your intellect.

Please try to read what I wrote, very slowly.

SVs attack Father Feeney for disobedience to his superiors, to Cardinal Cushing and to his Jesuit superior.  But according to SV principles, since both Cushing and Father's Jesuit Superiors had lost their authority, due to manifest heresy, for diresctly contradicting defined dogma.  Consequenly, since they have no office or authority, Father Feeney could not have been guilty of disobedience to his superiors.

So, whether he was a heretic is absolutely relevant to the point I'm making.  If you want to argue that Cushing was not a heretic, then that would be relevant.  If you disagree with SVism, that's not relevant, since the point is that the SVs are and this contradicts THEIR principles, whether or not you agree with them.  NONE of this has to do with "Suprema Fake".  That's a separate issue, related to the SV exaggeration of papal infallibility.

But, since you're evidently incapable of adducing rational arguments, please stay off my threads, since I do not need them polluted by a bad-willed retarded-ness.

If you want to make a point about ... Bishop Sanborn is NOT contradicting himself as stated above because [some halfway rational reason], then by all means.  But this kind of garbage, where you clearly can't follow an argument or a syllogism if it hit you in the face ... keep it off my thread.  While I can't force you to stay off, it's generally considered forum etiquette that if someone asks you to stay off your thread, then they should honor that.  Some forum software allows the OP to remove your comments.

Honest questions here;

Does the fact that the Novus Ordo lifted his "excommunication" in 72 seem as a sign from God to you?

Or, do you just equate it to, they lifted it because he did not openly reject Vatican II, so on that note it was a type of "reward" (at least in the eyes of the Vatican).

Please stay off my threads if you're just going to act retarded due to the fact that heresy has corrupted your intellect.

Please try to read what I wrote, very slowly.

SVs attack Father Feeney for disobedience to his superiors, to Cardinal Cushing and to his Jesuit superior.  But according to SV principles, since both Cushing and Father's Jesuit Superiors had lost their authority, due to manifest heresy, for diresctly contradicting defined dogma.  Consequenly, since they have no office or authority, Father Feeney could not have been guilty of disobedience to his superiors.

So, whether he was a heretic is absolutely relevant to the point I'm making.  If you want to argue that Cushing was not a heretic, then that would be relevant.  If you disagree with SVism, that's not relevant, since the point is that the SVs are and this contradicts THEIR principles, whether or not you agree with them.  NONE of this has to do with "Suprema Fake".  That's a separate issue, related to the SV exaggeration of papal infallibility.

But, since you're evidently incapable of adducing rational arguments, please stay off my threads, since I do not need them polluted by a bad-willed retarded-ness.

If you want to make a point about ... Bishop Sanborn is NOT contradicting himself as stated above because [some halfway rational reason], then by all means.  But this kind of garbage, where you clearly can't follow an argument or a syllogism if it hit you in the face ... keep it off my thread.  While I can't force you to stay off, it's generally considered forum etiquette that if someone asks you to stay off your thread, then they should honor that.  Some forum software allows the OP to remove your comments.

Thanks for asking nicely. But I will decline your offer. And I stand by exactly what I said. 

Here is the full Holy Office Letter to Cushing:


Your Excellency, 

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has very carefully followed the beginning and the continuation of the serious controversy raised by certain associates of the St. Benedict Center and of Boston College, concerning the interpretation of the maxim: "Outside the Church, no salvation". 

After having examined all the necessary and useful docuмents on this subject — among others the file sent by your chancellery, the appeals and reports wherein the associates of the St. Benedict Center expound their opinions and objections, besides many other docuмents referring to this controversy, collected through the official channels, — the Sacred Congregation has reached the certitude that this unfortunate question was raised because the principle "outside the Church no salvation" has not been well understood or examined and the controversy has become envenomed as a result of a serious lack of discipline on the part of certain members of the aforementioned associations, who have refused to give respect and obedience to the legitimate authorities. 

Consequently, the most Eminent and most Reverend cardinals of our Supreme Congregation decreed in plenary session on Wednesday 27 July 1949, and the Sovereign Pontiff, in an audience on the following Thursday, 28 July 1949, deigned to approve the sending of the following doctrinal explanations, invitation and exhortations: 

We are obliged by the divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things contained in the Word of God, Scripture or Tradition, and proposed by the Church for our faith as divinely revealed, not only by solemn definition but also by her ordinary and universal magisterium (Denziger n. 1792). 

Now, amongst those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to teach, there is also this infallible declaration which says that there is no salvation outside the Church. 

This dogma, however, has to be understood in the sense attributed to it by the Church herself. The Saviour, in fact, entrusted explanation of those things contained in the deposit of faith, not to private judgement, but to the teaching of the ecclesiastical authority. 

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there exists a very strict mandate from Jesus Christ, for He explicitly commanded his apostles to teach all nations to observe all things which He Himself had ordered (Matth XXVIII.19-20). 

The least of these commandments is not that which orders us to be incorporated through baptism into Christ's Mystical Body, which is the Church, and to remain united with Him and with His Vicar, through whom, He Himself governs his Church in visible manner here below.

That is why no one will be saved if, knowing that the Church is of divine institution by Christ, he nevertheless refuses to submit to her or separates himself from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff, Christ's Vicar on earth. 

Not only did our Saviour order all peoples to enter the Church, but He also decreed that it is the means of salvation without which no one can enter the eternal kingdom of glory. 

In his infinite mercy, God willed that, since it was a matter of the means of salvation ordained for man's ultimate end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, its salutary effects could also be obtained in certain circuмstances when these means are only objects of "desire" or of "hope". This point was clearly established at the Council of Trent, with regard to both the sacrament of baptism and of penance (Denziger, n. 797 and 807). 

The same must be said of the Church, as a general means of salvation. That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member, but he must at least be united to the Church through desire or hope. 

However, it is not always necessary that this hope be explicit as in the case of catechumens. When one is in a state of invincible ignorance, God accepts an implicit desire, thus called because it is implicit in the soul's good disposition, whereby it desires to conform its will to the will of God. 

These things are clearly expressed in the dogmatic letter published by the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII 29 June 1943 "on the mystical Body of Jesus Christ" (A.A.S., vol. XXXV, 1943, p. 193 and sq.). In this Letter, the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are presently incorporated into the Church as members and those who are united with her through desire only. 

Speaking of the members who form here below the mystical Body, the same august Pontiff said: Only those are members of the Church who have received the Baptism of regeneration and profess the true faith and who are not, to their misfortune, separated from the Body as a whole or cut off from her through very grave faults by the legitimate authority.

Towards the end of the same Encyclical, he affectionately invites those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church to enter into her unity, and he mentions those who "by a certain desire and unconscious longing have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer". He does not in any way exclude them from eternal salvation, but he goes on to affirm that they are in a state "in which they cannot be sure of their eternal salvation" and that "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church". 

With these words, the Pope condemns those who exclude from eternal salvation men who are united to the Church only through implicit desire as well as those who wrongly affirm that all men can be saved equally in all religions (cf. Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, Denz. 1641 and sq.; Pius XI, Quanto conficiamur moerore, Denz. 1677). 

However, it should not be thought that any sort of desire to enter the Church is sufficient for salvation. The desire whereby a person adheres to the Church must be animated by perfect charity. Nor can such an implicit desire produce its effect if it is not animated by supernatural faith, for anyone who comes to God must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him. (Heb XI, 6). The Council of Trent declares (session VI. ch. VIII): Faith is the principle of man's salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification. Without it, it is impossible to please God and to be counted among his children. (Denz., 801) 

It is clear, from what is stated above, that the ideas proposed by the periodical From the Housetops (n.3) as the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, are far from being so and are very dangerous not only for those in the Church but also for those who live outside her. 

Certain conclusions follow from this doctrinal explanation concerning discipline and conduct, which cannot be ignored by those who vigorously defend the need of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops whom the Holy Spirit has made guardians to govern the Church (Acts XX, 28). 

That is why it is inexplicable that the St. Benedict Center should claim to be a Catholic group and desire to be considered as such whilst not conforming to the prescripts of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law and continuing to be a cause of discord and of rebellion against the ecclesiastical authority and of disturbance for many consciences. 

Furthermore, it is difficult to understand that a member of a religious institute, Fr. Feeney, should present himself as a "defender of the faith" and at the same time not hesitate to attack the teaching given by the legitimate authorities and not even fear to incur the grave sanctions with which he is threatened by the sacred canons for gravely violating his religious duties as a priest and simple member of the Church. 

Finally, it is not prudent to tolerate certain Catholics claiming for themselves the right to publish a periodical, with the intention of expounding theological doctrines, without the permission of the competent authority, called the imprimatur as prescribed by the sacred canons. 

Those therefore who expose themselves to the grave danger of opposing the Church must seriously reflect that once "Rome has spoken", they cannot carry on regardless, even for reasons of good faith. Their bond with the Church and their duty of obedience are certainly stricter than for those who adhere to her "only through an unconscious desire". Let them understand, therefore, that they are children of the Church, affectionately sustained by her with the milk of doctrine and sacraments, and that, after having heard the voice of their Mother, they cannot then be excused of culpable ignorance. Let them understand that to them the following principle applies without restriction: Submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is necessary for salvation.

In addressing him this present letter, I express to Your Excellency my profound regards of esteem and devotion. 

F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, 
A. Ottaviani, assessor. 

Honest questions here;

Does the fact that the Novus Ordo lifted his "excommunication" in 72 seem as a sign from God to you?

Or, do you just equate it to, they lifted it because he did not openly reject Vatican II, so on that note it was a type of "reward" (at least in the eyes of the Vatican).

I just think that was done only because a friend of Father Feeney appealed on his behalf to get it lifted, and all Father Feeney was asked to do was to recite the Nicene Creed, which he of course had no problem doing.  So it was considered an act of kindness sought by a friend.

Now, most anti-Feeneyites conflate the excommunication (for disciplinary reasons) and a doctrinal condemnation.  Under John XXIII, the works of Father Feeney were examined by theologians in the Vatican and cleared of containing any error.  Yes, you can argue that Roncalli was an Anti-Pope, but the Cardinals who did the study were merely wrapping up something that started before Roncalli, and were appointed already by Pius XII before Roncalli's election.

You have to apply an extremely exaggerated understanding of infallibility to push SH as if it had the authority even of an Encyclical, much less something more solemn.

There's a lot of funny-business with SH also.  1) it never appeared in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and Canon Law indicates that only thing that appear in AAS are part of the authentic (even if merely-authentic) Magisterium.  Why wasn't there?  When Rahner included it in his edition of Denzinger, again elevating its authority, because he liked it, the footnote cites "Irish Ecclesiastical Review" as the source, a first for a Denzinger entry.  2) Cushing sat on the docuмent for nearly 2 years, and released it almost immediately after the Cardinal who had purportedly signed it had died.  Why?  It would immediately have been useful to Cushing.  Was the text tampered with?

There's no "signature" of Pius XII on it either, but a mere statement internal to the docuмent that "Pius XII" had "approved it".  Why not then put it in AAS?  Well, Pius XII did in fact have to approve of everything that went in there, and ... perhaps he rejects it?  We don't know.

As for Fr. Feeney rejecting Trent ... I draw everyone's attention to what Trent actually taught, namley, that JUSTIFICATION cannot happen without Baptism and/or the votum (depending on your reading of it).  Father believed this.  So ... what was his heretical contradiction of Trent again?  He merely distinguished between justification and salvation, which is quite legitimate.  Melchior Cano, OP, a respected theologian writing after Trent, made the same distinction, holding that infidels could be justified but no saved.  Disagree with Father Feeney all you want, but that distinction has not been condemned.

Finally, Father Feeney started off by merely calling out the rejection of EENS, and Baptism of Desire didn't even enter into the discussion until a couple years later ... when he recognized, as I point out here, that it was the chief weapon by which those who hate EENS dogma have been attempting to undermine it.

And the biggest problem with the Trads who reject EENS (even if we prescind from the question of BoD proper) is this ...

MAJOR:  There's no salvation outside the Church (dogma).
MINOR:  Various non-Catholics, heretics, schismatics, infidels, Hindus in Tibet, Jews, etc. can be saved. (held by 99% of Trad clergy)
CONCLUSION:  Various non-Catholics, heretics, schismatics, infidels, etc. can be IN THE CHURCH.

That is in fact the genesis of the Vatican II ecclesiology ... which these Trad clergy unwittingly all hold, despite condemning it as heretical out of the other sides of their mouths.  If these are able to be saved, then these are able to be in the Church.  So what does that do to your definition of "the Church"?  It now consists not only of Catholics, baptized members of Christ's body who profess the true faith, are in the communion of the Sacraments, and are in submission to the Vicar of Christ ... so the Church contains not only these, but also various random "Hindus in Tibet", Jews (who hate Christ), Muslims, infidels, Protestant heretics who hate Our Lady, Orthodox schismatics, etc. 

So in your opinion, "most" of the Trad bishops are "heretics?" Is that what you are saying?

Are you an idiot where you cannot read?  That's what I said almost verbatim.

They are heretical on this point.  Now, this does not mean they are pertinacious heretics.  Some are, some are not.  I have no way of sorting that out.  You have clearly demonstrated that you are, so that you're not a Catholic but a manifest heretic who's outside the Church.

III. The Reconciliation
In 1972 Father Feeney was supposedly “reconciled” to the Church. If Father Feeney truly needed to be reconciled, he would have had to recant his position. Yet, he was never asked to do that. Anyone who is truly excommunicated for heresy must withdraw what they once held and proclaim belief in orthodoxy. But Father Feeney was never asked to take back or repent from his teaching on “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.” Why not? Because those of the Archdiocesan establishment who arranged for the reconciliation knew the facts of the case and that Father Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy, but for disciplinary reasons.

In fact, as part of the reconciliation ceremony, Father Feeney was asked to profess one of the three Creeds of the Church. So, without any objection, he devoutly recited the Athanasian Creed. This ancient and venerable creed begins and ends with these solemn words:

Whoever wishes to be saved needs above all else to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. … This is the Catholic Faith; unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Therefore, Father Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for teaching that outside the Catholic Church and without submission to the Roman Pontiff no one can be saved. He couldn’t be, because the Church herself has dogmatically defined this.
Rather, Father Leonard Feeney was unjustly treated and persecuted by fellow churchmen in positions of authority who abused the authority of the offices they held and brought up uncanonical charges of disobedience to this priest of Christ’s Church. We conclude, then, with the following summary of those binding and infallible definitions of the Church Magisterium concerning salvation that Father Feeney simply affirmed, taught, and defended as they were solemnly declared:

• Outside the Catholic Church there is positively no salvation (Lateran IV: Denz. 430; [802]; Pope Boniface VIII: Denz. 468-69; [870, 875]; Council of Florence: Denz. 714; [1351]; Pius IX:1716-17; [2916-17])
• The Sacrament of Baptism makes one a member of the Church (Florence: Denz. 696; [1314]; Council of Trent: Denz. 895; [1671]);
• Anyone not Baptized (sacramentally) is not a member of the Catholic Church (Trent: Denz. 895; [1671]), that is, he is not “truly incorporated into the Church”(Pope Leo IV- Council of Valence III: Denz. 324);
• Baptism is in water ONLY, the two (water and Baptism) are inseparable, and neither is separable from its link with the other (Pope St. Leo I: Tome-Council of Chalcedon I), and must be confessed as such (Council of Vienne: Denz. 482; [903]; Trent: Denz. 858; [1615]);
• The Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (Pope Benedict XIV: Denz. 1470) for adults and for children alike (Vienne: Ddnz. 482; [903]), and is optional for NO ONE (Trent: Denz. 861; [1618]).

The facts presented in this short article need to be made known so that the good name of Father Leonard Feeney, M.I.C.M., can be restored among Catholics and the immutable dogma of no salvation outside the Catholic Church be once again proclaimed from the housetops.


https://catholicism.org/father-feeney-fact-sheet.html

but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.

Can you explain exactly what this ^^ means? I sure can't. 

He is saying it is certain  - what is certain? To labor in invincible ignorance of the true religion means no guilt of sin?

This is entirely ambiguous if not nonsensical because to labor at something means one at least has some idea or knows something about the thing they're working on, which is impossible for one whose ignorance is invincible.