I don't have a particular link. I just pieced it together.
It's all a fraud perpetrated by the modernists. SH does not appear in AAS. SH does not have the signature of Pius XII. SH was published only in Cushing's own The Pilot.
SH was allegedly written in August 1949 by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, but strangely it was not released until it was published by Cushing in September of 1952, a full 3 years later, AFTER Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani had passed away.
Now look at the heresiarch Cushing. Cushing declared the dogma EENS to be "nonsense." "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's going to tell me that Christ came to die for any select group."
Cushing was a pre-Vatican II pioneer of inter-religious prayer services and ecuмenical dialogues.
Cushing was a shameless modernist heretic.
As we know, by Vatican II the Church was thoroughly taken over by modernists, so one might imagine that these forces were deeply entrenched well before Vatican II. Vatican II cites SH in support of its ecclesiology.
Interesting that this low-level missive was bloated in authority by being given the Latin name Suprema Haec Sacra, a type of designation typically reserved for actual papal docuмents. Plus you have the words "Suprema" and "Sacra" in it to make it sound more solemn that it is.
Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner inserted SH into Denzinger to further perpetrate the hoax by giving it the allusion of being borderline "dogmatic".
It's got the fingerprints of the same modernists who brought us Vatican II ALL OVER IT. SH simply does not pass the smell test.
Msgr. Fenton admits this docuмent is not infallible, but then wrongly claims it's part of Pius XII's "authentic teaching", when Canon Law itself declares that stuff must appear in AAS in order to be considered authentic teaching.
Now the reason that SVs happen to be the most dogmatic BoDers is because they have a bizarre exaggerated view of infallibility (as a reaction against the lax view held by R&R). Msgr. Fenton himself distinguishes between infallibility and the religious submission owed to authentic non-infallible docuмents. SVs blur the distinction and endow these with a practical infallibility by claiming that one must give INTELLECTUAL assent to every point contained in every act of the authentic Magisterium. But if it's non-infallible, it could contain error and one is never obliged to give intellectual assent to error. Msgr. Fenton himself elaborated on the distinction between religious submission (where there's due reverence and essentially respectful "benefit of the doubt" given) vs. the intellectual assent owed to infallible pronouncements. SVs won't admit this distinction. That's why the rabidly uphold the heretic SH and have embraced the same heretical ecclesiology that Vatican II taught.
According to the memoirs of Edward Kennedy it was his brother Robert who asked Archbishop Richard Cushing to suppress Fr.Leonard Feeney.See: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.htmlAlso:http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/damian2.htm(By Randy Engel)
The Overworld that Protects ShanleyAs the Shanley case demonstrates so well, the Archdiocese of Boston, like every large diocese in the nation, has a flourishing Catholic pederast/ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ underworld - Shanley knew Pilecki who knew Ritter who knew Ö. and so it goes.
But, more importantly, the Shanley case has an active clerical and lay overworld consisting of Cardinals, bishops, priests, lay bureaucrats and attorneys and an infinite number of other Catholics who protect the underworld either by their silence or by their overt approval. Shanley went through three Cardinals -
• Richard Cardinal Cushing (1944-1970)
• Humberto Cardinal Medeiros (1970-1983)
• Bernard Cardinal Law (1983 -?)
All three protected Shanley. Why? When all is said and done, the answer probably boils down to blackmail. Shanley knew too much about too many - and like many clerical ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs was clever enough to have kept good records as a form of "insurance" against the day he would run into trouble with either the Church or secular law enforcement agencies.
Shanley has accused Cushing of abusing him when he was a seminarian at Boston's St. John Seminary. Medeiros played a major cover-up role in the case of Father James Porter. And, as the record clearly shows, Law has not been out of Shanley's grip since they took over the Boston Archdiocese - for reasons yet to be revealed. [108]