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

Author Topic: VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE  (Read 2637 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LionelAndrades

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
« on: June 16, 2010, 05:12:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    Vatican reopen the Boston case. Justice delayed is justice denied. The ex cathedra dogma says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church. So does Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Fr. Leonard Feeney affirmed the infallible teaching. He had integrity and courage. Was the Archbishop of Boston in heresy? Are the Jesuits at Boston College still in heresy?

    EWTN’s report by Michael J. Mazza on the Internet EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS: FATHER FEENEY MAKES A COMEBACK states:


    Quote
    Three separate articles appeared on the subject of ,(in From the Housetops) culminating in a piece in the December 1948 issue entitled "Liberal Theology and Salvation," written by Raymond Karam. In discussing the necessity of visible membership in the Catholic Church for salvation, it read:


    Our age is witnessing a terrible defection of Christ's word in the minds of innumerable Catholics. Infected with liberalism, surrendering their minds to teachers of error and heresy, they minimize the importance of dogma and of Catholic unity, and they distort the meaning of Charity, changing that sublime supernatural virtue into a sentimental shadow which, at best, can be termed mere charitableness.... The eternal salvation of man is achieved by adhering to the word of Christ, by abiding in the vine. Those alone bear good fruit who have been faithful to the word of Christ.... It is part, therefore, of the doctrine of Jesus Christ that no man can be saved outside the Catholic Church (Pepper, p. 18).
    Enough concern was generated by this article that a priest from the Theology Department of Boston College drafted a brief five-page response. The Center, sensing it had struck a nerve, eagerly welcomed the challenge. Raymond Karam wrote a 57-page response, which was published in the Spring 1949 issue of From the Housetops. Fr. Feeney's support for Karam and his position is without question, given the Jesuit's influential position at the Center and with From the Housetops, as well as his later assertion that "what Mr. Karam holds is what I hold" (Pepper, p. 30).

    Seeking to bring the matter to a head, three members of the Center who also were on the faculty of Boston College wrote their president on January 26, 1949 notifying him that the Theology Department of their institution was in heresy. One month later, these three were joined by a teacher from Boston College High School in writing to the Jesuit General Superior in Rome with the same accusations. The reaction was swift. The four were fired from their respective positions on April 13, 1949. Now the Center had its martyrs, and the war was on.


    The ex cathedra dogma says no man can be saved outside the Catholic Church. This was the position of Fr.Leonard Feeney and St.Benedict Centre. This is the teaching of Fr.Leonard Feeney’s communities today, two of whom have been given canonical status in the diocese of Worcester,USA.
    Yet the Jesuit Superior General of that time removed Fr.Leonard Feeney from the community. He was also removed as a professor at Boston College.


    Was he really in heresy?

    Quote
    These theological subtleties were apparently lost on Fr. Feeney and his crowd. The renegade Jesuit had, in the meantime, immersed himself in his own cauldron of boiling oil by repeatedly refusing to obey an order by his now extremely concerned Jesuit superiors to leave the Center and go to another assignment at Holy Cross College. In April 1949, Fr. Feeney was visited by a former teacher of his who urged him "for the good of the Society, the good of the Province, and thereby the good of your soul," to comply, but Feeney refused, claiming "it is the Blessed Lady who is keeping me at St. Benedict Center" (Pepper, pp. 29-30).

    Quote
    Archbishop Cushing's subsequent suspension of Fr. Feeney's priestly faculties on April 18, 1949 only formalized what had already occurred, as the rebellious priest had moved out of the Jesuit Residence and into the Center itself some time previous. Fr. Feeney continued to celebrate the sacraments despite the fact he had no faculties to do so.- Michael Mazza


    The Archbishop of Boston never affirmed the ex cathedra teaching in public. The Jєωιѕн Left newspapers reported that the Catholic Church had changed its teaching on outside the church there is no salvation. There was no clarification from the Archbishop.

    Whatever Rome knew about the case came largely from the Archbishop as Fr.Feeney refused to go to Rome to defend himself.

    Was he really in heresy? Time shows that the Jesuits at Boston College still reject the ex cathedra teaching.

    How could Fr.Feeney or Bro.Francis Malus (Raymond Karam) be in heresy when you read the text of the infallible teaching ?

    How can there be a de facto baptism of desire that we can know of?

    Time shows that it was not Fr.Feeney or Bro. Francis Maluf who were in heresy.


    The Boston Case needs to be re opened and even though justice is delayed, it needs to be done. [/b]

    Here is the ex cathedra dogma:

    Quote
    1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.

    2.“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.).Ex cathedra.
    3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/


    It says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. This was the teaching of Fr.Leonard Feeney, Bro. Francis Maluf and the other professors dismissed by Boston College.
    Explicitly everyone needs to enter the Church to avoid Hell.
    There is no explicit Baptism of Desire that we can know of.
    Implicitly a person could be saved with the Baptism of desire, it would be a probability and known only to God.

    __________________________________________________





    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #1 on: June 16, 2010, 05:28:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    It says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.


    No it doesn't.  Where do you see the phrase "visible member" in any of the three bulls you quoted?  You guys claim to be such great interpreters of the law, that you follow the decrees as they are written, and then you go and make up your own laws out of thin air.

    All those bulls say is that you must be part of the Catholic Church to be saved.  They don't go into detail about the technicalities of what it means to be inside the Catholic Church.  That was left for the theologians to discuss, and the Church has not given its final word on it.  It's still up in the air.  

    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #2 on: June 16, 2010, 05:29:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    There is no explicit Baptism of Desire that we can know of.
    Implicitly a person could be saved with the Baptism of desire, it would be a probability and known only to God.


    What on Earth?  This is a new one!  Are you saying you believe in implicit baptism of desire, but not in explicit BoD for catechumens?
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41897
    • Reputation: +23940/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #3 on: June 16, 2010, 05:34:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    The ex cathedra dogma says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church. So does Vatican Council II...


     :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:

    If there's a single error at the heart of all the V2 errors it's a denial of EENS.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #4 on: June 16, 2010, 05:37:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    The ex cathedra dogma says no man can be saved outside the Catholic Church. This was the position of Fr.Leonard Feeney and St.Benedict Centre. This is the teaching of Fr.Leonard Feeney’s communities today, two of whom have been given canonical status in the diocese of Worcester,USA.


    Quote
    two of whom have been given canonical status


    Quote
    canonical status


     :roll-laugh2:  

    Sir, I think you took a wrong turn back at the roundabout.  The place you are looking for is called "Pascendi's Forum."

    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41897
    • Reputation: +23940/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #5 on: June 16, 2010, 05:45:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Raoul, membership in the Church is visible by its very (theological) definition.

    And only the baptized are members of the Church.

    Question is whether someone can somehow be "within" the Church without being a member.  I say no, that it doesn't make sense.

    Visible membership doesn't mean carrying a "I am a Catholic" ID card but it does mean incorporation into the Church as a "member" which IMO requires sacramental Baptism and the "seal" or Baptismal character.  And subjection to the Roman Pontiff does not happen and cannot happen without the character either.  Finally, the definition of the Fourth Lateran Council says one must be among the fideles to be saved, and fideles is a well-known technical term in theology that positively excludes catechumens (and anyone who has not received sacramental Baptism).

    What a muddled article this is.  To claim that V2 and Suprema Haec actually back Father Feeney--well, that's utter nonsense.  Suprema Haec affirms EENS in principle but then immediately begins explaining it away, and it was directed specifically AGAINST Father Feeney.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #6 on: June 16, 2010, 05:49:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I skimmed the part you just quoted, Ladislaus.  How did I miss that?  

    Are you a troll, LionelAndrades?  The Holy Office letter of Abp. Cushing upholds "the dogma" of Father Feeney?  As long as we're making things up, Benedict XVI converted sixteen thousand Jєωs during his last visit to a ѕуηαgσgυє...

    Lionel, that Letter, as everyone knows, is the first teaching approved by a Pope that confirms -- or tries to confirm -- the existence of implicit baptism of desire.  It also claims that implicit BoD was being taught in Mystici Corporis Christi.  

    But you actually believe in implicit baptism of desire, apparently.  The problem is that usually when people call EENS "the dogma" they are against any theory that says someone can be be part of the Church without actual water baptism.  You do know this, right?  

    You are acting like you are strictly upholding "the dogma" but you actually have the majority, liberal view.  You must be the reincarnation of Mgr. Fenton.
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #7 on: June 16, 2010, 05:49:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • P.S. Ladislaus, you are getting more rigid by the day.  You used to be more up in the air about baptism of desire, willing to wait for a future decision.  Now you are sounding like you have gone full Feeney.  Full Feeney Five my Ladislaus lies... Yikes.  It's definitely time for bed.
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41897
    • Reputation: +23940/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #8 on: June 16, 2010, 06:05:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    P.S. Ladislaus, you are getting more rigid by the day.  You used to be more up in the air about baptism of desire, willing to wait for a future decision.  Now you are sounding like you have gone full Feeney.  Full Feeney Five my Ladislaus lies... Yikes.  It's definitely time for bed.


    Raoul, you must have missed my language "I say no, that it doesn't make sense. "--clearly stating that this is my opinion, that it's incompatible with Church dogma.  I used "I say" quite deliberately to indicate that this is my opinion.  Then for good measure I added an "IMO".

    I don't believe even in explicit BoD, no, but I acknowledge that this is my opinion.  I am with St. Gregory nαzιanzen who stated "I don't see it."  That's where I'm at.  I'm not accusing you or anyone else of heresy for believing in BoD.  I was actually inclined in favor of explicit BoD for catechumens because of Trent.  But then I actually read (all of) Trent (in Latin) and didn't see BoD being taught there at all.


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #9 on: June 16, 2010, 06:08:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladislaus said:
    Quote
    And subjection to the Roman Pontiff does not happen and cannot happen without the character either.


    You have no proof for that, although I know what you will quote: "What have we to do with those who are without."  I could easily just shoot back that catechumens are without in an external sense, that the Pope did not have in mind how they could be within through desire if they happened to die before baptism.  

    Technically, as catechumens, they are without, that is why they don't go to Communion.  This is nothing new.  You can't take isolated comments about baptism being necessary, or catechumens being without, and use them against baptism of desire.  These are simply general statements; while teachings on baptism of desire explain an exceptional circuмstance.

    Underneath you can see the same logic that the Church always had, at least until the 1917 Code of Canon Law which permits catechumens to be buried in hallowed ground -- from what we see, from external indications, the unbaptized are not part of the Church, but God can save them if He wants to.

    How do you get around that Code without disobedience, though, Ladislaus?  Do you see that CM is actually being more consistent than you by claiming Benedict XV is an anti-Pope?
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #10 on: June 16, 2010, 06:09:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sorry I missed the IMO.  My brain is on the blink or something, I'm missing all sorts of details.
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41897
    • Reputation: +23940/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #11 on: June 16, 2010, 06:14:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    Ladislaus said:
    Quote
    And subjection to the Roman Pontiff does not happen and cannot happen without the character either.


    You have no proof for that


    I cited the Council of Trent in one of the Dimond threads which explains that this is why Catechumens are not bound by the precept to go to Confession.  And it's a well-known principle of Canon Law that only the baptized are subjects of Church law.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41897
    • Reputation: +23940/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #12 on: June 16, 2010, 06:20:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    How do you get around that Code without disobedience, though, Ladislaus?  Do you see that CM is actually being more consistent than you by claiming Benedict XV is an anti-Pope?


    1917 Code of Canon law was not doctrinal and was not teaching BoD.  It can be viewed as leaving the question open and for pastoral reasons allowing the burial of Catechumens.  Codes of Canon Law are disciplinary and not dogmatic in nature.

    Allowing Catechumens to be buried is tantamount to allowing ѕυιcιdєs to be buried.  It would be done for pastoral reasons (with which by the way I disagree) due to the (albeit remote) possibility that they MIGHT be saved.

    So, from a doctrinal standpoint, this amounts to no more than leaving the question open.

    Offline LionelAndrades

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 56
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #13 on: June 16, 2010, 09:41:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • EVERY ONE NEEDS TO BE A VISIBLE MEMBER OF THE CHURCH

    No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” -Ex Cathedra

    You can only remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church if you have Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water.

    Offline LionelAndrades

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 56
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE
    « Reply #14 on: June 16, 2010, 09:42:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Raol 76

    All those bulls say is that you must be part of the Catholic Church to be saved.
    Yes. You must have Catholic Faith which includes the Baptism of water.