Angelqueen thread : Assisi-Contrast: Lefebvre and Benedict XVI

[Mac]

Assisi-Contrast: Lefebvre and Benedict XVI http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35405

There is an open letter posted on this thread to E. Michael Jones that was published in part in Culture Wars Magazine. It makes some interesting comments in defense of Fr. Feeney and points out a big contradiction in the position of the SSPX. The thread concerns the planned interfaith prayer meeting that is coming up in Assisi. The letter claims that the SSPX cannot complain about ecumenism since they support the 1949 Holy Office letter.

I would be interested in knowing what others think of the argument.

Mac

[Roguejim]

No comment on the letter, but the author apparently is a member of this (independent?) chapel.
http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/

[DeSelby]

I'll try to comment on the letter.

Honestly, Mac, I think the letter makes a lot of sense; hence, the pointing out of the fact that the gentleman who wrote the letter is a member of an "independent" chapel in order to isolate him and dodge the issue. On an AQ thread called "pastoral failure" (which is where this letter first made its appearance on that site) one poster wrote, "that letter is written by a total patsy." Very elucidating and eloquent, right?. Another poster--a moderator I believe--missed the main point of the letter, and focused on an issue regarding the 1962 missal, instead of the real issue, the 1949 letter. Still others just labeled him a "bleep" as they say on that forum, and that was met with emoticons in the affirmative. Again, very, very eloquent and helpful. And others posters with variations on the theme, etc.

*****

From the letter:

"Traditionalism is not “at the end of its tether.” Maybe the SSPX is but not traditional Catholicism. The appellation, “traditional” has only become necessary in the modern age to distinguish Catholics from liberal Catholic modernists and the conservative Catholic dupes who profess Church membership. If the SSPX is at the end of its tether it is because they have failed to effectively articulate the current doctrinal and liturgical defense of traditional Catholicism with sufficient understanding and clarity. It may prove a tragedy that at this critical historical period they are taken by you and others as the spokesman for Catholic tradition."

Agreed.

From the letter:

"If I did not know better I might get the impression from your article that you have never heard of the condemned heresy of Modernism. The word “modern” and its cognates appears 17 times in your edited web page version yet not once in your article is it identified as a heresy. Not even when you quote Cardinal Ottaviani’s maxim, “Always the same,” and dismiss it as a “theological version of Groundhog Day” is the heresy of modernism mentioned. Truth does not change and maybe if you reflect upon that fact you could, like the character in Groundhog Day, enter upon the work of developing the virtue of fortitude which more often than not requires the patient standing of our ground."

E. Michael Jones and most of his writers clearly do not understand the dogma; as editor of Culture Wars, he has had published articles that make reference to "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" not as a DOGMA, but merely as a "well-worn phrase."


From the letter:

"It is, as you say in your concluding remarks to Bishop Richard Williamson that “There is no third way” between what he identifies as “the two extremes of either Truth or Authority.” But to see the problem as a negotiation between “Truth or Authority” is to misstate the problem. Every Catholic is firstly subject to Truth, including those Catholics in Authority. The response to Truth is assent of the intellect and the will. The response to Authority is obedience. Obedience is owed to Authority by the virtue of Justice but Obedience is not the first subsidiary virtue of Justice. That distinction belongs to the virtue of Religion. It is the virtue of Religion that determines whether an act of Obedience is a virtue or a sin. Any good book on moral theology will list the acts of the virtue of Religion and there is not an act of the virtue of Religion that has not been trampled upon since the close of Vatican II by liberal Catholics who have brought along their conservative Catholic confederates by the leash of Authority."

I'm in agreement with this too, sadly.

From the letter:

Reflecting upon the virtue of Religion what stands out is that they are for the most part physical acts that are quantifiable. The Catholic religion is an incarnational religion. The Faith is not something that is only held in the internal forum but must necessarily be expressed by acts of the virtue of Religion. This obligation to express our religion in the public forum by acts of the virtue of Religion is a duty imposed by God and therefore the acts of the virtue of Religion embodied in the Immemorial Ecclesiastical Traditions that are perfectly consonant with our Faith are necessary attributes of that Faith and are possessed as a right by every Catholic. That is why St. Pius X, in his condemnation of Modernists in Pascendi Dominid Gregis, defended our ecclesiastical traditions by saying:

They (the Modernists) exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of Tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those “who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind.... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church”; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: “We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.” Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: “I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church."

continued:

"Ecclesiastical Tradition is founded upon Divine Tradition and human nature, both of which are immutable, and that is why there are elements of Ecclesiastical Tradition that are immutable so that in the Tridentine profession of faith, we dogmatically declare as an article of Divine and Catholic Faith that we “most steadfastly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church.” The SSPX does not understand this. They follow the 1962 transitional Bugnini Indult extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo because they regard the liturgy as purely a matter of Church discipline that is the proper subject matter for “liturgical committees” stuffed with “liturgical experts.” They have entered into the argument as “liturgical experts”, not with the intent of defending tradition, but to make their own liturgical opinions prevail. They have made themselves the judge of what liturgical changes are doctrinally sound and what are not. They cannot object to the Novus Ordo or the Reform of the Reform in principle. If they had simply adhered to the immemorial Roman rite of the Mass as their right they could have confronted Authority with Truth on the liturgical question just as the Catholics of Milan did when Rome attempted to suppress the Ambrosian Rite."

If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema.
-Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13

"On the question of dogma, the SSPX, like the Modernists, err regarding the nature of dogma, which they treat as the proper subject for theological exposition to gain new interpretative insights unfettered by the restrictive literal meaning of the words. St. Pius X in Pascendi condemns the heresy of Modernism and the Modernist’s rejection of dogma. The word dogma and its cognates appear 36 times in the encyclical. In Pascendi St. Pius X says that dogmas are not "symbols" of the Truth but "absolutely contain the Truth." Again in Pascendi, St. Pius X says:

On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new - we find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.
St. Pius X, Pascendi

"In Lamentabili Pope St. Pius X condemns the proposition that, "The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself." Again in the same document St. Pius X condemns the error that holds that, "The dogmas of the faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing."

"This last condemnation is important to understand. There are linguistic clues to the nature of dogma that help make the comments of St. Pius X more intelligible. All dogma is expressed in the form of categorical universal propositions that are in the order of truth-falsehood. They remain either true or false regardless of time, person, place or circumstances. Once a doctrine is dogmatically defined it becomes a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith. A heretic is a baptized Catholic who refuses to believe an article of Divine and Catholic Faith."

"Commands, injunctions, laws, orders, precepts, etc. are in the order of authority-obedience. All commands, injunctions, laws, orders, precepts etc. are hierarchical, they do not bind in cases of necessity or impossibility such as invincible ignorance, they have no power against a conscience that is both true and certain, and they must be in accord with natural law and Divine positive law. None of these restrictions apply to dogma."

"Time and again and again and again Catholics apply the restrictions that govern commands, injunctions, laws, orders, precepts, etc. to limit the universality of dogmatic truths. They treat dogmas as “preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing.” The following two quotations by Pope John Paul II are examples of this corruption of language and truth:
1.)
Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.
-John Paul II, The Seeds of the Word in the Religions of the World, September 9, 1998
2.)
For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her.
-John Paul II, General Audience, May 31, 1995

"Modernists are really linguistic deconstructionalists. They begin by transferring dogmatic truths from the order of truth-falsehood to the order of authority-obedience and then use authority as a weapon against truth. They end up denying the intentionality of language and then the meaning begins to change with the wind."

And this is where the letter has been leading:

"This novel doctrine of ‘salvation by implicity’ was formulated in the 1949 Letter sent from Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani in the Holy Office to Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston (Protocol No. 122/49) condemning Fr. Leonard Feeney’s defense of the traditional teaching on the necessity of the Church membership for salvation."

"This 1949 Letter, first published in 1952, has come to be the doctrinal foundation for new Ecumenical Ecclesiology that has entirely replaced St. Robert Bellarmine’s definition that the Catholic Church “is the society of Christian believers united in the profession of the one Christian faith and the participation in the one sacramental system under the government of the Roman Pontiff.” It is this Ecumenical Ecclesiology that is the underpinning for the destruction of nearly every Ecclesiastical Tradition in the Latin rite since Vatican II, the most important of which is the traditional Roman rite of the Mass."

I find my self in agreement .

The letter continues:

"This Letter of the Holy Office is heretical. But before addressing that question, it should be remembered that this Letter was never entered formally in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and therefore it has no greater authority than a private letter from one bishop to another. The Letter was included in the 1962 edition of Denzinger’s, not by virtue of the authority of the document, but rather by the modernist agenda of the editor, Rev. Karl Rahner. This Denzinger entry was then referenced in a footnote in the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium.

"The 1949 Letter was written to address Fr. Feeney’s defense of the dogma that there is “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.” Fr. Feeney did not formulate his theological teaching on ‘baptism of desire’ until several years after this Letter was written. So it is an error to say as some have said that the 1949 Letter “condemns Fr. Feeney’s teaching on Baptism.”

"The 1949 Letter says that people can gain salvation by an “implicit” membership in the Catholic Church. The material cause of this “membership” and salvation is the “good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” This is a form of Pelagianism. The 1949 Letter denies the defined dogmas of the Catholic Church that an explicit Faith is necessary for salvation, that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that being subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. No quote from Scripture, father, doctor, saint, council, magisterial document or accepted tradition affirms this belief of ‘salvation by implicity’. Since supernatural Faith is believing “what God has revealed on the authority of God,” there is no explanation provided how there can be “supernatural faith” if someone does not know if God has revealed anything or what, if anything, God has revealed. The people who think this Letter is orthodox should be asked to try their hand at writing a Credo of implicit Catholic Faith."

For me this is the big question: "Implicit faith." If you can accept that, what's the big deal about Assisi?

The letter goes on:

"The 1949 Letter further undermines all dogma by its modernist affirmation that, “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.” The truth of the matter is that the dogmatic formulation is the “sense in which the Church herself understands” divinely revealed truth. It is the Church giving “explanation (to) those things that are contained in the deposit of faith” It is the dogma itself that is infallible and dogma is not subject to theological refinement but itself is the formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith. To say, “dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it,” is to claim for the theologian an authority that belongs to the dogma itself. When this modernist proposition is accepted, there is no dogmatic declaration that can be taken as a definitive expression of our faith for it will always be open to theological refinement."

I have to look into this more, but, again, I'm in agreement.

The letter continues:

"On September 1, 1910, one-hundred years ago this month, St. Pius X published his Motu Proprio, Sacrocrum Antistitum, containing the Oath Against Modernism which was made both by the author and the recipient of the 1949 Letter. In that oath they swore to almighty God, that they would “wholly reject the heretical notion of the evolution of dogmas, which pass from one sense to another alien to that the Church held from the start” and that they “likewise condemn every error whereby is substituted for divine deposit, entrusted by Christ to His spouse and by her to be faithfully guarded, a philosophic system or a creation of the human conscience, gradually refined by the striving of men and finally to be perfected hereafter by indefinite progress.”

"The 1949 Letter as published also contained a critical mistranslation of a passage from the encyclical, Mystici Corporis, by saying that non-Catholics "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," The words “related to” are a mistranslation of the Latin which should read “ordained toward.” Also the Latin original is in the subjunctive mood expressing a wish or desire, and not a condition of fact. It is properly translated as “may be ordained towards” and not, as was done, in the indicative mood as “related to.” It is evident that this mistranslation entirely changes the meaning of what Pius XII said."

I'll have to look into this.

cont.:

"Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the 1949 Letter as an orthodox expression of Catholic faith as evidenced by his own writings. The society he founded does so as well:

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics

And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
-Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006

"The 1949 Letter is the theological foundation for modern ecumenism, and ecumenism is the theological foundation for the Novus Ordo and the justification for the overturning of nearly every single Ecclesiastical Tradition in the Roman rite since Vatican II. It is, and should be, a problem for every traditional Catholic that quotations of Archbishop Lefebvre and statements made by Pope John Paul II, the Great Ecumenist, on this question of salvation are in such close agreement because they are in principle agreeing with modern Ecumenical Ecclesiology that presupposes that there are many invisible “Catholics” among the heretics, schismatics, infidels, and pagans of the world and that the Church of Christ in fact “subsists” in the Catholic Church and is not, in this world, co-extensive with its visibly baptized members who profess the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith. "

"The SSPX’s disagreement with the Vatican on Ecumenism can only be with the means employed and not the ends, a disagreement of degree and not one of kind. Since ecumenism is the overarching theological justification for the transmutation of every Ecclesiastical Tradition since Vatican II, and since the SSPX regards Ecclesiastical Traditions as purely disciplinary matters, and not as necessary integral elements of our Faith, they can only argue questions of policy and not principle. With ‘salvation by implicity’, there can be no meaningful argument against Ecumenism or Religious Liberty. The accusation of schism becomes meaningless. Pope John Paul II’s prayer meeting at Assisi makes perfect theological sense. After all, if the Holy Ghost dwells within the souls of many pagans, infidels, heretics, Jews, Muslims, even atheists and agnostics who are in the state of grace and secret members of the Mystical Body of Christ, why should we refuse to pray with them?"

Bingo.

cont.:

"Pope Benedict XVI, in December of 2005 addressing the Roman Curia on his “hermeneutics of reform,” emphasized that there is a need for “distinguishing between the substance and the expression of the faith.” That is, he holds that there is a disjunction between Catholic truth and dogmatic formulations. The SSPX expresses a similar opinion with regard to the dogmatic declarations on necessity of the sacraments in general and the sacrament of baptism in particular for salvation, as well as the dogmatic declarations on the necessity for salvation of being a member of the Catholic Church, of professing the Catholic Faith explicitly, and of being subject to the Roman Pontiff. The SSPX argues against a strict literal reading of these dogmatic formulations. Here they are in agreement with the modern Church that dogmatic formulations are open to theological refinement not necessarily in agreement with the literal meaning of the words."

Interesting point....

Letter cont.:

"The SSPX discussions with the Vatican on doctrinal and liturgical questions can go nowhere because the SSPX has taken liturgical and doctrinal positions that in principle are indistinguishable from the Modernists. Their liturgical position, grounded in the Bugnini 1962 transitional extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo Missal, will make it impossible to resist the Reform of the Reform. The doctrinal position that holds that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement, will undermine any possible opposition to Ecumenical Ecclesiology."

Agreed.

(Back to the letter):

"The common end of all Modernist activity is the destruction of dogma. The SSPX in their negotiations with Rome cannot defend the Catholic Faith against Modernist errors because the only defense is the immutable universal truth of defined Catholic dogma. In accepting the 1949 Letter as normative, they have stripped themselves of the only weapon against a corrupted authority. They cannot effectively complain about the prayer meeting at Assisi because they have accepted its theological justification.

"Hilaire Belloc said, ‘Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe.’ It sums up the core principle of our cultural heritage. There is no real defense of our culture without defending the Faith. Belloc’s contempt for G. G. Coulton was because he was a medievalist who did not understand, and in fact hated, the first principle of medievalism. Like Coulton you are publishing a magazine entitled “Culture Wars” and you cannot defend the faith, the very heart of our culture, because you do not see its necessary relationship to the Ecclesiastical Traditions that make the faith known and communicable and thus, the heresy of Modernism is invisible to you. You cannot see the problem beyond a question of “schism.” The analogy between the situation of the SSPX and the priest sex scandal is inappropriate and only demonstrates a belief that the Church’s relation to the culture is more as a victim of its corruption than its mother and guardian. Leo XIII said in Inscrutabili Dei Consilio, “Religious error is the main root of all social and political evils.” The Vatican II, a pastoral council that has proven itself to be a pastoral failure, binds no Catholic conscience on questions of faith."

D. M. Drew
Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission
York, PA

*****


So there you go Mac. Do have any thing you'd like to share? —Oh and

[MRyan]

I'll try to comment on the letter.

[...] And this is where the letter has been leading:

From the letter:

This novel doctrine of ‘salvation by implicity’ was formulated in the 1949 Letter sent from Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani in the Holy Office to Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston (Protocol No. 122/49) condemning Fr. Leonard Feeney’s defense of the traditional teaching on the necessity of the Church membership for salvation."

"This 1949 Letter, first published in 1952, has come to be the doctrinal foundation for new Ecumenical Ecclesiology that has entirely replaced St. Robert Bellarmine’s definition that the Catholic Church “is the society of Christian believers united in the profession of the one Christian faith and the participation in the one sacramental system under the government of the Roman Pontiff.” It is this Ecumenical Ecclesiology that is the underpinning for the destruction of nearly every Ecclesiastical Tradition in the Latin rite since Vatican II, the most important of which is the traditional Roman rite of the Mass."

I find my self in agreement.

That's unfortunate; for it simply isn't true that the 1949 Letter is the “doctrinal foundation” for an ecclesiology “that has entirely replaced St. Robert Bellarmine’s definition that the Catholic Church”; neither did it “formulate … this novel doctrine of ‘salvation by implicity’”.

Furthermore, the Holy Office Letter did not condemn “Fr. Leonard Feeney’s defense of the traditional teaching on the necessity of the Church membership for salvation.", but only his denial that one may be united to the Church by an implicit desire, provided one possesses a supernatural faith and charity, and the proper intentions (of which an implicit desire to join the Church is included); which is not “a novel doctrine of ‘salvation by implicity’”, but a long-standing and accepted teaching of the Church.

The new ecumenical ecclesiology may have been responsible for the New Mass, but it is incorrect (and a logical fallacy) to pin this ecclesiology on the author's false understanding of the Holy Office Letter.

I say the author of the hit piece got the 1949 Letter all wrong; and I'm willing to back it up -- what say you?

[Roguejim]

"This Letter of the Holy Office is heretical. But before addressing that question, it should be remembered that this Letter was never entered formally in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and therefore it has no greater authority than a private letter from one bishop to another.[u]

Who says that "it has no greater..." based on its exclusion from the ACTA? Adam Miller? Gary Potter? Bro. Andre Marie?

From an old AQ thread:

Roguejim:
Regarding the Holy Office Letter again, and its non-entry in the ACTA, I accidentally came across an article by Fr. Brian Harrison where he deals with this very issue. The article quoted from is on NFP, but Fr. Harrison makes this brief detour:

"At this point we need to open a little parenthesis in order to clarify what sort of document does in fact constitute a genuine Vatican intervention. This is because some "traditionalists", including Ibranyi, refuse to accept as official, or even as authentic, any Vatican statement which is not published in its official journal, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS). Many readers will be aware that in recent years there has been something of a revival of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney's rigorist interpretation of the dogma "outside the Church, no salvation". And those who have kept abreast of this controversy will probably be aware that one of the main Feeneyite strategies is to deny the official character, and even the authenticity, of the famous 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. Since this Letter, which rejects Fr. Feeney's doctrinal position, was never published in the AAS, his followers claim that it simply doesn't count as an authentic intervention of the Magisterium. (The Fathers of Vatican II obviously thought otherwise, since they cited it along with other magisterial sources in the Council's most solemn document.3) In another of his many publications, Richard Ibranyi, who happens to be a Feeneyite as well as a BLEEP!, refers to this document as "the so-called Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney" and brands it (in large, bold type) as "fraudulent".4

The Feeneyite error on this point is evidently based on a misapplication of canon 9 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (paralleled by canon 8 in the 1983 Code), which states (among other things) that "universal ecclesiastical laws" must be promulgated in the AAS in order to be binding. Now, "ecclesiastical laws" are exercises of the Church's governing office. They are above all 'practical' decisions, establishing that something specific is to be done, or not to be done. Such decisions need to be carefully distinguished from those of the Church's Magisterium, or teaching office, which are above all concerned with the 'theoretical' task of clarifying the difference between true and false doctrine. Now, the 1949 Holy Office Letter clearly fell into the latter category. It decreed no penalty for Fr. Feeney or his 'St. Benedict Center', and issued no command to the Archbishop of Boston to take any specific action in this case. It limited itself to distinguishing authoritatively between true and false interpretations of the dogma under discussion. So there was absolutely no requirement for this Letter to be published in the AAS in order to be both genuine and official."

[DeSelby]

I say the author of the hit piece got the 1949 Letter all wrong; and I'm willing to back it up -- what say you?

Certainly, I would be most happy and genuinely appreciative of your efforts to back it up; I'm willing to listen.

Furthermore, the Holy Office Letter did not condemn “Fr. Leonard Feeney’s defense of the traditional teaching on the necessity of the Church membership for salvation.", but only his denial that one may be united to the Church by an implicit desire, provided one possesses a supernatural faith and charity, and the proper intentions (of which an implicit desire to join the Church is included); which is not “a novel doctrine of ‘salvation by implicity’”, but a long-standing and accepted teaching of the Church.

Perhaps, if you like, you could start here. I don't know how exactly I am to understand the seeming dichotomy within "supernatural faith" and "implicit desire." Or, in other words, the proposal of the possibility of a faith that is both "supernatural" and not knowingly Catholic, perhaps even willfully non-Catholic at the same time; a faith both "supernatural" and "invincibly ignorant." I may have worded that a bit improperly though.

[MRyan]

I say the author of the hit piece got the 1949 Letter all wrong; and I'm willing to back it up -- what say you?

Certainly, I would be most happy and genuinely appreciative of your efforts to back it up; I'm willing to listen.

Thanks, DeSelby, I was hoping that you wouldn’t take my “I can back it up” bravado as some sort of direct confrontation … it was just my rather brash way of inviting you to the table in order to see if your justification for agreeing with the author’s comments on the Holy Office Letter is warranted; and I’ll demonstrate why I believe the charges are unfair and inaccurate.

Furthermore, the Holy Office Letter did not condemn “Fr. Leonard Feeney’s defense of the traditional teaching on the necessity of the Church membership for salvation.", but only his denial that one may be united to the Church by an implicit desire, provided one possesses a supernatural faith and charity, and the proper intentions (of which an implicit desire to join the Church is included); which is not “a novel doctrine of ‘salvation by implicity’”, but a long-standing and accepted teaching of the Church.

Perhaps, if you like, you could start here. I don't know how exactly I am to understand the seeming dichotomy within "supernatural faith" and "implicit desire." Or, in other words, the proposal of the possibility of a faith that is both "supernatural" and not knowingly Catholic, perhaps even willfully non-Catholic at the same time; a faith both "supernatural" and "invincibly ignorant." I may have worded that a bit improperly though.

Very well. First, there is no dichotomy between supernatural faith and the implicit desire to be united to the Church (the object of the Letter’s “implicit desire”). It is not a matter of Faith that the intention to enter the Church must be explicit if one does not know of the precept. In other words, the intention to enter the Church can be included in one’s "desire" (votum - a real act of the will) to do the will of God in all things. One cannot be held responsible for a divine and/or ecclesiastical precept one is not aware of; or one cannot fulfill. However, supernatural faith and charity, as well as sanctifying grace, are always and intrinsically necessary for unity with our Lord and His Mystical Body - the Church.

… in other words, the proposal of the possibility of a faith that is both "supernatural" and not knowingly Catholic, perhaps even willfully non-Catholic at the same time; a faith both "supernatural" and "invincibly ignorant." I may have worded that a bit improperly though.

You recognize of course that one may possess and profess a supernatural Faith without knowing all the divine and Catholic truths of the Faith; with the latter truths being implicit in one’s explicit Faith.

What’s important to note is the fact that the Letter specifically teaches:

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 [supernatural] charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith.

And, as Fr. Fenton points out in his commentary on the Letter (see the new thread), this “desire” and “yearning” cannot be any mere nebulous general feeling or “wish”, “This operation also must be a real and effective act of the will”.

The Feeneyite error is one which denies this fundamental teaching on “desire”, for which it was justly rebuked by the Holy Office for insisting that salvation is possible only by way of a visible and material incorporation (membership) in the visible Church.

I’m not sure where you came up with the idea that the Letter makes an allowance for, or even suggests that an act of the will which is turned against the Church (“willfully non-Catholic”) can in any way be included in the “desire and yearning” to be united to the Church.

The Holy Office Letter makes reference to Mystici Corporis Christi and to the teachings within the Allocution and Encyclical of Pope Pius IX on invincible ignorance, and for good reason, for the Letter taught nothing less than what these two Pontiffs already taught. As Fr. Fenton said, the Letter:

has given to Catholic theologians by far the most complete and detailed exposition of the dogma that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation which has yet to come from the ecclesiastical magisterium.

Lumen Gentium teaches the same doctrine, and made a footnote reference to the same Holy Office Letter.

As I said in another post, ever the stalwart defenders of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, Fr. Mueller, Bishop Hay and Orestes Brownson, understood the teachings of Pope Pius IX on invincible ignorance in a sense contrary to the Feeneyite Center, and not only taught baptism of blood and baptism of desire, but taught that a non-visible incorporation with the Church (and thus, salvation) was possible for those who have the proper dispositions.

The author you cite is barking up the wrong tree; his real fight should be with Pope Pius IX and the Catholic Church.

There is no doubt, DeSelby, that the liberals have trampled over this same teaching; but that does not make the teaching false or deserving of the spiteful and misplaced wrath of the author of the letter posted on AQ.

Fr. Fenton, echoing the Church:

God has entrusted the authoritative and infallible explanation of these revealed truths, not to private judgment, but to the teaching authority of the Church alone.

[tornpage]

I’m not sure where you came up with the idea that the Letter makes an allowance for, or even suggests that an act of the will which is turned against the Church (“willfully non-Catholic”) can in any way be included in the “desire and yearning” to be united to the Church.

I'm not sure where DeSelby came up with the idea, and it's not in the Holy Office Letter, but I know some friends of ours who have taken the position that one can have "supernatural faith" and, for example, be a Muslim who is aware of the Catholic Church's belief that Christ is divine and deny it.

That's going from an implied or incipient faith that does not contradict "explicit" Christian faith to one that actually denies Christian dogma.

This is an issue I'd like to explore a bit.

[tornpage]

And I'm not so sure that the Holy Office's citation of the Epistle to the Hebrews text, "“For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him,” does not indicate a belief in God and a belief in Him as judge of our eternal fates is all that is required for "supernatural faith." Perhaps it is, though Fenton is right that the citation to Hebrews doesn't have to be read so far, and that the use of it in the letter doesn't mean "explicit" faith in Christ is not now required.

Perhaps the Muslim who has "supernatural faith" in the Epistle to the Hebrews sense and yet denie the divinity of Christ may be excused that denial in the same sense that a Catholic may "ignorantly" hold a belief that is materially heretical and still die in a state of grace sufficient for salvation.

An interesting question that haunts me, and I realize the Church probably hasn't answered that one.

[MRyan]

Let me just say this:

There are two errors to avoid:

1. Marking the limits to invincible ignorance
2. Giving the “hope” of salvation to those who are (objectively) outside the Church

Where is the happy subjective middle - I have no idea; and neither does the Church; but she preaches only one Gospel and she insists with infallible certitude that outside of her there is no salvation; but she also knows that God has not shut the door of the kingdom to the other sheep He must call; those whose hearts are pure - and who desire to do His will above all things. How He might bring to these the light of grace, truth and salvation (and into His Mystical Body), that is a mystery the Church says we need not concern ourselves with; but to preach the Good News of salvation to all men without exception: That salvation can be found here; within the bosom of Holy Mother Church - and nowhere else.

But she never gives up on those other sheep - she calls each and every one of them home to their Father's house - and leaves the rest to God.

[columba]

Let me just say this:

There are two errors to avoid:

1. Marking the limits to invincible ignorance
2. Giving the “hope” of salvation to those who are (objectively) outside the Church

Where is the happy subjective middle - I have no idea; and neither does the Church; but she preaches only one Gospel and she insists with infallible certitude that outside of her there is no salvation; but she also knows that God has not shut the door of the kingdom to the other sheep He must call; those whose hearts are pure - and who desire to do His will above all things. How He might bring to these the light of grace, truth and salvation (and into His Mystical Body), that is a mystery the Church says we need not concern ourselves with; but to preach the Good News of salvation to all men without exception: That salvation can be found here; within the bosom of Holy Mother Church - and nowhere else.

But she never gives up on those other sheep - she calls each and every one of them home to their Father's house - and leaves the rest to God.

MRyan.. Not meaning to be confrontational but do you not think the Church "has" given up on those other sheep? They are no longer to be "proselytized" but rather left to the unknown (knowable) fate of their own religion.
Is this not so?

[MRyan]

MRyan.. Not meaning to be confrontational but do you not think the Church "has" given up on those other sheep? They are no longer to be "proselytized" but rather left to the unknown (knowable) fate of their own religion.
Is this not so?

Not at all; what the Church means by "to be proselytized" and what you mean by it may be two different things; though there is no doubt that there exists within the hierarchy a liberal wing that believes that our "separated brethren" are not really separated at all and are fine just where they are; in fact they are positively appalled and embarrassed when any of the Anglicans or Orthodox express a desire to enter into full communion with the Church.

And here's Benedict XVI welcoming them with open arms .. en masse (at least the Anglicans).

Ecumenism has the same goals as it always had; what has changed is the approach or orientation the Church has chosen to take in order to reach out in a more effective way (so she believes) to those outside of her Body.

There are abuses galore, and perhaps even the sin of omission in some cases; but in many respects, I can't fault her for trying a new approach; though, like you, I deplore how she is now perceived in many camps as just another Church among the many churches.

What can I say ... but note well that this orientation did not begin with VCII, it began long before then ... a subject worthy perhaps of a separate thread.

[Mac]

"This Letter of the Holy Office is heretical. But before addressing that question, it should be remembered that this Letter was never entered formally in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and therefore it has no greater authority than a private letter from one bishop to another.

Who says that "it has no greater..." based on its exclusion from the ACTA? Adam Miller? Gary Potter? Bro. Andre Marie?

From an old AQ thread:

Roguejim:
Regarding the Holy Office Letter again, and its non-entry in the ACTA, I accidentally came across an article by Fr. Brian Harrison where he deals with this very issue. The article quoted from is on NFP, but Fr. Harrison makes this brief detour:

"At this point we need to open a little parenthesis in order to clarify what sort of document does in fact constitute a genuine Vatican intervention. This is because some "traditionalists", including Ibranyi, refuse to accept as official, or even as authentic, any Vatican statement which is not published in its official journal, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS). Many readers will be aware that in recent years there has been something of a revival of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney's rigorist interpretation of the dogma "outside the Church, no salvation". And those who have kept abreast of this controversy will probably be aware that one of the main Feeneyite strategies is to deny the official character, and even the authenticity, of the famous 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. Since this Letter, which rejects Fr. Feeney's doctrinal position, was never published in the AAS, his followers claim that it simply doesn't count as an authentic intervention of the Magisterium. (The Fathers of Vatican II obviously thought otherwise, since they cited it along with other magisterial sources in the Council's most solemn document.3) In another of his many publications, Richard Ibranyi, who happens to be a Feeneyite as well as a BLEEP!, refers to this document as "the so-called Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney" and brands it (in large, bold type) as "fraudulent".4

The Feeneyite error on this point is evidently based on a misapplication of canon 9 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (paralleled by canon 8 in the 1983 Code), which states (among other things) that "universal ecclesiastical laws" must be promulgated in the AAS in order to be binding. Now, "ecclesiastical laws" are exercises of the Church's governing office. They are above all 'practical' decisions, establishing that something specific is to be done, or not to be done. Such decisions need to be carefully distinguished from those of the Church's Magisterium, or teaching office, which are above all concerned with the 'theoretical' task of clarifying the difference between true and false doctrine. Now, the 1949 Holy Office Letter clearly fell into the latter category. It decreed no penalty for Fr. Feeney or his 'St. Benedict Center', and issued no command to the Archbishop of Boston to take any specific action in this case. It limited itself to distinguishing authoritatively between true and false interpretations of the dogma under discussion. So there was absolutely no requirement for this Letter to be published in the AAS in order to be both genuine and official."

I disagree with Fr. Brian Harrisons’ opinion regarding the AAS. Fr. Harrison distinguished the difference between laws and doctrinal matters claiming that only laws must be published in the AAS to be valid papal acts. While it is true that laws must be published to be valid in the AAS, the AAS does not restrict itself to only legal matters.

Since its establishment in 1908 it has contained every official papal act including every encyclical, decisions of the Roman congregations, notices of appointments, legal judgments, etc. Even the document Munificentissimus Deus declaring the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was published in the AAS. The encyclical of St. Pius X, Promulgandi Pontificias Constitutiones, made the ASS “[u]the only official press of the Holy See for the doctrinal and disciplinary problems.”


The AAS is a Roman monthly publication containing the principal public documents issued by the Pope, directly or through the Roman Congregations. It was begun in 1865, under the title of "Acta Sanctæ Sedis in compendium redacta etc.", and was declared, 23 May, 1904, an organ of the Holly See to the extent that all documents printed in it are “authentic and official". St. Pius X in Promulgandi Pontificias Constitutiones made the ASS “the only official press of the Holy See for the doctrinal and disciplinary problems.” Catholic Encyclopedia

By the Constitution Promulgandi Pontificias Constitutiones of Pius X, dated October 3, 1908, a new kind of promulgation is declared necessary and sufficient for Pontifical laws and acts. From the beginning of 1909, an Official Gazette will be published from the Vatican press; in this commentary promulgation of pontifical laws will be made; and this promulgation will be sufficient for the whole Church, unless it be otherwise provided in particular cases. Canon Law Review Commentary

The AAS is for “doctrinal” matters and it is the established publication for “authentic and official” documents. The 1949 Holy Office Letter was not published in the AAS. It was a private letter to the Cardinal Cushing and he was the one published the letter in 1952.

Mac

[MRyan]

Sorry, Mac, but your entire argument seems to be based on a logical fallacy:

Fallacy: Because the AAS does not restrict itself to only legal matters; and, since 1908 it has contained every official papal act including every encyclical, decisions of the Roman congregations, notices of appointments, legal judgments, etc; therefore ……?

Therefore what? The Holy Office Letter is not an “official papal act” (it an official act of a Roman Congregation, which Congregations constitute but one authority with the pope (Holy Office, 3 Jan, 1892); it is not an “encyclical”; it is not a “decision” of the Roman congregation (the Holy Office); it did not give a “notice of appointment”, and it is not a “legal judgment”. It is none of these things, but only what Fr. Harrison said it is. As an official and genuine Letter of the authentic teaching office:

It decreed no penalty for Fr. Feeney or his 'St. Benedict Center', and issued no command to the Archbishop of Boston to take any specific action in this case. It limited itself to distinguishing authoritatively between true and false interpretations of the dogma under discussion. So there was absolutely no requirement for this Letter to be published in the AAS in order to be both genuine and official."

The Holy Office Letter stopped being private when it was ordered published (after having “examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center”), in its entirety and in its original Latin (as well as in English), by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, in September, 1952.

[Mac]

Sorry, Mac, but your entire argument seems to be based on a logical fallacy:

Fallacy: Because the AAS does not restrict itself to only legal matters; and, since 1908 it has contained every official papal act including every encyclical, decisions of the Roman congregations, notices of appointments, legal judgments, etc; therefore ……?

Therefore what? The Holy Office Letter is not an “official papal act” (it an official act of a Roman Congregation, which Congregations constitute but one authority with the pope (Holy Office, 3 Jan, 1892); it is not an “encyclical”; it is not a “decision” of the Roman congregation (the Holy Office); it did not give a “notice of appointment”, and it is not a “legal judgment”. It is none of these things, but only what Fr. Harrison said it is. As an official and genuine Letter of the authentic teaching office:

It decreed no penalty for Fr. Feeney or his 'St. Benedict Center', and issued no command to the Archbishop of Boston to take any specific action in this case. It limited itself to distinguishing authoritatively between true and false interpretations of the dogma under discussion. So there was absolutely no requirement for this Letter to be published in the AAS in order to be both genuine and official."

The Holy Office Letter stopped being private when it was ordered published (after having “examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center”), in its entirety and in its original Latin (as well as in English), by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, in September, 1952.

Sorry MRyan, the logical fallacy is Fr. Harrison’s and now yours.

The problem with Fr. Harrison is that he knows better and his argument is intentionally deceptive. It is interesting in that the Open Letter to Dr. Jones addresses how modernists intentionally conflate the categories of doctrine and discipline for their own ends. Fr. Harrison is doing something very similar in this example.

The canon referenced by Fr. Harrison addresses a necessary attribute of any law for it to be valid, that is, it must be properly promulgated. Since the canon only deals with attributes of promulgation of law as they apply to AAS, Fr. Harrison has erroneously concluded that matters of doctrine do not have to be published in the AAS. Fr. Harrison has concluded since canon law stipulates that laws must be published in AAS therefore matters of doctrine do not. And since the Holy Office Letter 1949 concerns doctrine it does not require publication in the AAS to be a valid papal act. The law does not address the question. His conclusion does not follow.

But the decree of St. Pius X establishing the AAS in 1908, Promulgandi Pontificias Constitutiones, does explicitly address the question. It says that the ASS is “the only official press of the Holy See for the doctrinal and disciplinary problems.”

What you need to do to make a credible reply is:
1) Produce the Holy Office document directing the Cardinal Cushing to publish the 1949 Letter with its protocol number and its AAS reference. I have asked for them and they have not been produced.
2) Produce another example of an official doctrinal question by a Sacred Congregation since 1908 that was not published in the AAS. If there is one I have not been able to find it.

By the way, did you read the open letter to Dr. Jones or just glance at it?

Mac

[MRyan]

Sorry MRyan, the logical fallacy is Fr. Harrison’s and now yours.

The problem with Fr. Harrison is that he knows better and his argument is intentionally deceptive. It is interesting in that the Open Letter to Dr. Jones addresses how modernists intentionally conflate the categories of doctrine and discipline for their own ends. Fr. Harrison is doing something very similar in this example.

Now there’s a rather severe accusation, don’t you think? “Intentionally deceptive”, was he?

The canon referenced by Fr. Harrison addresses a necessary attribute of any law for it to be valid, that is, it must be properly promulgated. Since the canon only deals with attributes of promulgation of law as they apply to AAS, Fr. Harrison has erroneously concluded that matters of doctrine do not have to be published in the AAS. Fr. Harrison has concluded since canon law stipulates that laws must be published in AAS therefore matters of doctrine do not. And since the Holy Office Letter 1949 concerns doctrine it does not require publication in the AAS to be a valid papal act. The law does not address the question. His conclusion does not follow.

Now you are the one who is actually being deceptive. Because the subject matter of the private Letter to Ab Cushing was one which was primarily disciplinary in nature, and related directly to correcting the “doctrinal” error of Fr. Feeney, you conclude from this that all matters of doctrine, even private Letters from the Holy Office seeking to resolve a local dispute between a priest and his superiors, in order for the Letter to be considered genuine and authentic, it must be entered into the Acta.

And what's your proof? Why, you don't know of any private letters from a Roman Congregation that might have been subsequently published that were not entered into the Acta. And you call that "proof". Even if true, it does not make Fr. Harrison's arguments any less credible.

It appears to have never crossed your mind that the Holy Office tried to resolve this local issue without making a “federal case” of it, and it was only after three years of continued “troubles” and disobedience to his lawful superiors that the Letter was ordered published; and even then, the Holy Office chose not to enter the Letter into the Acta ... for reasons we cannot know for certain, but do not really matter.

But the decree of St. Pius X establishing the AAS in 1908, Promulgandi Pontificias Constitutiones, does explicitly address the question. It says that the ASS is “the only official press of the Holy See for the doctrinal and disciplinary problems.”

That’s right, and once the disciplinary problem of Fr. Feeney could not be resolved locally, his ipso facto excommunication was recorded in the Acta (Acta Apostolicae Sedis xxxxv, 100).

Will you now launch a canonical defense which seeks to render the excommunication “formally defective” and null and void, just like the Holy Office Letter is “formally defective” because it was not entered into the Acta?

Isn’t it strange that this “formally defective” Letter of the Holy Office was referenced in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, Chapter 2, Footnote 19: Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.

Can you tell us what business a Dogmatic Constitution of an Ecumenical Council has in citing a “formally defective” Letter of the Holy Office, a Letter deemed “heretical” by the author of the hit piece you cited on AQ?

I have a strong suspicion that The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church is an "official" document of the Church; heck, it's probably even recorded in the Acta.

Oh, wait, the author also considers VCII “heretical”, so … no wonder.

What you need to do to make a credible reply is:
1) Produce the Holy Office document directing the Cardinal Cushing to publish the 1949 Letter with its protocol number and its AAS reference. I have asked for them and they have not been produced.
2) Produce another example of an official doctrinal question by a Sacred Congregation since 1908 that was not published in the AAS. If there is one I have not been able to find it.

No, I have to do neither of those logical fallacies to make my reply “credible”. VCII’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church is evidence enough that the Letter is “credible”.

By the way, did you read the open letter to Dr. Jones or just glance at it?

Yes, I read it; or I wouldn’t have provided a detailed reply to DeSelby on why the hit piece is “formally effective” with respect to the H.O. Letter. The rest of it wasn’t worth commenting on ... though you shouldn't tempt me.

[Mac]

Sorry MRyan, the logical fallacy is Fr. Harrison’s and now yours.

The problem with Fr. Harrison is that he knows better and his argument is intentionally deceptive. It is interesting in that the Open Letter to Dr. Jones addresses how modernists intentionally conflate the categories of doctrine and discipline for their own ends. Fr. Harrison is doing something very similar in this example.

Now there’s a rather severe accusation, don’t you think? “Intentionally deceptive”, was he?

I think so. Fr. Harrison knows what kind of argument he has structured. He is only giving part of the information necessary to form a correct judgment. It was wholly improper to conclude that because there is a specific canon regarding the necessity of publishing laws in AAS for validity therefore doctrinal matters do not have to be published in the AAS.

The canon referenced by Fr. Harrison addresses a necessary attribute of any law for it to be valid, that is, it must be properly promulgated. Since the canon only deals with attributes of promulgation of law as they apply to AAS, Fr. Harrison has erroneously concluded that matters of doctrine do not have to be published in the AAS. Fr. Harrison has concluded since canon law stipulates that laws must be published in AAS therefore matters of doctrine do not. And since the Holy Office Letter 1949 concerns doctrine it does not require publication in the AAS to be a valid papal act. The law does not address the question. His conclusion does not follow.

Now you are the one who is actually being deceptive. Because the subject matter of the private Letter to Ab Cushing was one which was primarily disciplinary in nature, and related directly to correcting the “doctrinal” error of Fr. Feeney, you conclude from this that all matters of doctrine, even private Letters from the Holy Office seeking to resolve a local dispute between a priest and his superiors, in order for the Letter to be considered genuine and authentic, it must be entered into the Acta.

You should at least understand the argument before you call it “actually…deceptive.” I did not “conclude for this paragraph that all matter of doctrine… must be entered into the Acta.” That conclusion was drawn from the statement of St. Pius X, Promulgandi Pontificias Constitutiones, that “the only official press of the Holy See for the doctrinal and disciplinary problems” and the fact that I have made my own key doctrinal matters since the AAS and have always found an AAS reference.

And what's your proof? Why, you don't know of any private letters from a Roman Congregation that might have been subsequently published that were not entered into the Acta. And you call that "proof". Even if true, it does not make Fr. Harrison's arguments any less credible.

Maybe you do not understand why Fr. Harrison’s arguments are not just “less credible,” they are worthless. The canon cited by Fr. Harrison that requires laws to be published in the AAS for validity is required because of the nature of all laws, commands, precepts, etc. The same requirements do not apply to doctrinal questions. Doctrinal matters are published in the AAS not because of their nature but because of the directive of St. Pius X.

It appears to have never crossed your mind that the Holy Office tried to resolve this local issue without making a “federal case” of it, and it was only after three years of continued “troubles” and disobedience to his lawful superiors that the Letter was ordered published; and even then, the Holy Office chose not to enter the Letter into the Acta ... for reasons we cannot know for certain, but do not really matter.

I have heard this before that “the letter was ordered published.” No “letter” ordering its publication, no protocol number, no AAS reference has ever been produced. The letter was never published in the AAS it is therefore not an act of the Apostolic See because the AAS is “the only official press of the Holy See for the doctrinal and disciplinary problems”

But the decree of St. Pius X establishing the AAS in 1908, Promulgandi Pontificias Constitutiones, does explicitly address the question. It says that the ASS is “the only official press of the Holy See for the doctrinal and disciplinary problems.”

That’s right, and once the disciplinary problem of Fr. Feeney could not be resolved locally, his ipso facto excommunication was recorded in the Acta (Acta Apostolicae Sedis xxxxv, 100).

Will you now launch a canonical defense which seeks to render the excommunication “formally defective” and null and void, just like the Holy Office Letter is “formally defective” because it was not entered into the Acta?

So what? The excommunication was for discipline not doctrine. The excommunication was removed without any abjuration of error or heresy, congregation founded by Fr. Feeney are in good standing in the diocese of Worcester publishing his books and defending his teaching.

Isn’t it strange that this “formally defective” Letter of the Holy Office was referenced in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, Chapter 2, Footnote 19: Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.

Yes it is strange. The 1949 Letter has no greater standing than a private letter from one bishop to another and it ends up in the 1962 edition of Denzinger’s edited by Fr. Karl Rahner, and then is referenced in Lumen Gentium and we end up with the “Church of Christ subsits in the Catholic Church.” And all this from a “pastoral council.” The next thing you know everybody is holding potted plants and praying with Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, Jews, etc.

Can you tell us what business a Dogmatic Constitution of an Ecumenical Council has in citing a “formally defective” Letter of the Holy Office, a Letter deemed “heretical” by the author of the hit piece you cited on AQ?

I have a strong suspicion that The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church is an "official" document of the Church; heck, it's probably even recorded in the Acta.

Yes, it is authoritatively referenced in the AAS.

Oh, wait, the author also considers VCII “heretical”, so … no wonder.

What you need to do to make a credible reply is:
1) Produce the Holy Office document directing the Cardinal Cushing to publish the 1949 Letter with its protocol number and its AAS reference. I have asked for them and they have not been produced.
2) Produce another example of an official doctrinal question by a Sacred Congregation since 1908 that was not published in the AAS. If there is one I have not been able to find it.

No, I have to do neither of those logical fallacies to make my reply “credible”. VCII’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church is evidence enough that the Letter is “credible”.

No, I guess you don’t. But if you think the reply you have offered is “credible” you are mistaken. The question concerned the requirement cited by Pope St. Pius X for “doctrinal problems” to be published in the AAS and you have demonstrated nothing to the contrary.

By the way, did you read the open letter to Dr. Jones or just glance at it?

Yes, I read it; or I wouldn’t have provided a detailed reply to DeSelby on why the hit piece is “formally effective” with respect to the H.O. Letter. The rest of it wasn’t worth commenting on ... though you shouldn't tempt me.

Just wondered. You made some remarks that implied to me that you did not understand it.

Mac

[MRyan]

Sorry MRyan, the logical fallacy is Fr. Harrison’s and now yours.

The problem with Fr. Harrison is that he knows better and his argument is intentionally deceptive. It is interesting in that the Open Letter to Dr. Jones addresses how modernists intentionally conflate the categories of doctrine and discipline for their own ends. Fr. Harrison is doing something very similar in this example.

Now there’s a rather severe accusation, don’t you think? “Intentionally deceptive”, was he?

I think so. Fr. Harrison knows what kind of argument he has structured. He is only giving part of the information necessary to form a correct judgment. It was wholly improper to conclude that because there is a specific canon regarding the necessity of publishing laws in AAS for validity therefore doctrinal matters do not have to be published in the AAS.

No, it’s a totally rash and uncharitable act on your part to accuse Fr. Harrison of being “intentionally deceptive” because he “knows better” than to disagree with people like you who have determined on their own authority that, since the AAS is “the only official press of the Holy See for the doctrinal and disciplinary problems”, then ALL such official correspondence MUST be entered onto the Holy See’s “official press”.

The accusation of being “intentionally deceptive” because he “knows better” (no excuse for such willful deception) sounds distinctly like the venom that is commonly employed by a certain sect of sedevacantists … just a coincidence? Either way, there’s no excuse for it … though these days such accusations are not uncommon.

Your argument is a logical fallacy and you are the one who appears to have missed the import of Fr. Harrison’s argument. Here are a couple more write-ups on the AAS:

Acta Sanctae Sedis, a Roman monthly publication containing the principal public documents issued by the Pope, directly or through the Roman Congregations. It was begun in 1865, under the title of "Acta Sanctae Sedis in compendium redacta etc.", and was declared, May 23, 1904, an organ of the Holy See to the extent that all documents printed in it are "authentic and official". (The Original Catholic Encyclopedia)

The Acta Apostolicae Sedis, established by Pope Pius X with the decree Promulgandi Pontificias Constitutiones (29 September 1908), is the official gazette of the Holy See, appearing about twelve times a year and containing all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The laws contained in it are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue, unless a shorter or longer time is specified in the law. The AAS replaced a similar publication that had existed since 1865, under the title of Acta Sanctae Sedis . (The Anglo-Catholic http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/03/ecclesiastical-sundries-14/)

The fact that “all documents printed in it are ‘authentic and official’” does not mean, to Fr. Harrison’s point, that all documents of a doctrinal or disciplinary nature that are not printed in it are not “both genuine and official.” Fr. Harrsion seems to be making the point that in order to become effective all legislative documents and decisions must be entered, but not all doctrinal or disciplinary interventions taken by a Roman Congregation are “'practical' decisions, establishing that something specific is to be done, or not to be done.” Not every document is a “principal” document of the Pope or a Roman Congregation that “must” be entered into the Acta. The Roman Congregations have some discretion here, though you obviously disagree.

As Fr. Harrison said:

The Holy Office Letter reached no “decision”, it “decreed no penalty for Fr. Feeney or his 'St. Benedict Center', and issued no command to the Archbishop of Boston to take any specific action in this case. It limited itself to distinguishing authoritatively between true and false interpretations of the dogma under discussion. So there was absolutely no requirement for this Letter to be published in the AAS in order to be both genuine and official."

As such, the decision to enter or not to enter the Letter in the AAS was left to the total discretion of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, but that does not mean that the private Letter of 1949 was any less official or genuine.

Neither does your argument hold which states that “The 1949 Letter has no greater standing than a private letter from one bishop to another”; as if the intervention of the Holy Office, which acts on behalf of the Pope, even if marked “private”, can be considered a “private letter to one bishop to another”, as if Cardinals Marchetti-Selvaggiani and Ottavani were not acting in their official capacities as Secretary and Assessor of the Holy Office (respectfully). This is the same “private Letter” which said, in part:

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

Now, despite your protests to the contrary, since the purpose of the Letter was to provide “explanations pertinent to the doctrine” and “invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline”, such a letter is not necessarily a “principle public document”, decree or decision of the Pope or the Holy Office acting in his name. The Letter neither ordered anything nor demanded anything, let alone issued any “binding” or “lawful” directive.

The fact that the Holy Office would eventually order AB Cushing to publish the private Letter locally does not mean that the Holy Office was obliged to enter it into the Acta in order to make it “official”.

Maybe you do not understand why Fr. Harrison’s arguments are not just “less credible,” they are worthless. The canon cited by Fr. Harrison that requires laws to be published in the AAS for validity is required because of the nature of all laws, commands, precepts, etc. The same requirements do not apply to doctrinal questions. Doctrinal matters are published in the AAS not because of their nature but because of the directive of St. Pius X.

And yet, you cannot show us the directive which says that all Roman Congregation documents of a doctrinal or disciplinary nature MUST be entered into the Acta in order to be “official”. Show us the actual directive or stop spouting these "less than worthless" opinions.

That’s right, and once the disciplinary problem of Fr. Feeney could not be resolved locally, his ipso facto excommunication was recorded in the Acta (Acta Apostolicae Sedis xxxxv, 100).

Will you now launch a canonical defense which seeks to render the excommunication “formally defective” and null and void, just like the Holy Office Letter is “formally defective” because it was not entered into the Acta?

So what? The excommunication was for discipline not doctrine. The excommunication was removed without any abjuration of error or heresy, congregation founded by Fr. Feeney are in good standing in the diocese of Worcester publishing his books and defending his teaching.

That’s right, but if you know your history, then you would know that the excommunication itself was challenged by certain followers of Fr. Feeney and St. Benedict Center members for being, like the Letter, “formally defective”. You missed the point entirely; but that does not surprise me.

Yes it is strange. The 1949 Letter has no greater standing than a private letter from one bishop to another and it ends up in the 1962 edition of Denzinger’s edited by Fr. Karl Rahner, and then is referenced in Lumen Gentium and we end up with the “Church of Christ subsits in the Catholic Church.” And all this from a “pastoral council.” The next thing you know everybody is holding potted plants and praying with Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, Jews, etc.

Well now; there you go … the non-sequitur is complete, and I'm sure you feel much better.

[Roguejim]

From Fr. Harrison:

"Dear Mr. XX,
I just looked up the original Latin text of Promulgandi and your correspondent has misquoted it. According to him, St. Pius X in 1908 said that the ASS (he means AAS), from the following year onward, was to be “the only official press of the Holy See for the doctrinal and disciplinary problems.” But the words "doctrinal and disciplinary problems" nowhere appear in this papal Constitution.
What the Pope said is that AAS is to be the only place of official promulgation "for those acts of the Holy See that need promulgation". Obviously, that means not all official Vatican decisions are the sort that do in fact need promulgation - which is exactly what I said in my article. It is laws that need promulgation in order to be command obedience, and the 1949 letter was not a law, but a piece of doctrinal instruction. Pope Pius X continues here by saying that he also wants to be published in the AAS those other documents which the competent Vatican officials judge to be "suitable for general knowledge".
So all this supports the position I took in my own article (which I ran by a Doctor in Canon Law prior to publishing it). In the same article, if I remember rightly, I have referred to decisions of the Vatican's Sacred Penitentiary about intimate conjugal relations (periodic continence) which were sent out to Bishops round the world to pass on quietly to Confessors, but which were never published in the AAS, because they were clearly delicate matters and not the sort of thing Rome (at that time in history) wanted to spread abroad as matters of "general (or common) knowledge". It appears the same decision was made about the 1949 Letter: for reasons best known to themselves, Pius XII and his advisers didn't want to broadcast the Feeney controversy all over the Catholic world. But that doesn't stop these Holy Office and Sacred Penitentiary decisions from being authentic, even if rather low-level (non-infallible) doctrinal decisions of the See of Peter.
In short, there is nothng in this 1908 document that suggests that no papal or Vatican doctrinal statement is to be considered official and authentic unless it is published in the AAS. And that approach constantly taken by the Holy See itself. (For instance, to take an example of a document I have just been consulting, the Vatican's Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine quotes many minor speeches and other documents of popes on social questions that were never published in the AAS. Yet simply by including them in the Compendium the Vatican shows it considers them official.)
God bless,
Fr. Harrison"

[tornpage]

MRyan,

Where is the happy subjective middle - I have no idea; and neither does the Church; but she preaches only one Gospel and she insists with infallible certitude that outside of her there is no salvation; but she also knows that God has not shut the door of the kingdom to the other sheep He must call; those whose hearts are pure - and who desire to do His will above all things. How He might bring to these the light of grace, truth and salvation (and into His Mystical Body), that is a mystery the Church says we need not concern ourselves with; but to preach the Good News of salvation to all men without exception: That salvation can be found here; within the bosom of Holy Mother Church - and nowhere else.

Very true. I believe you are referencing or alluding to Pius IX's words here, which have been misapplied and used improperly in the service of what he calls an "impious and equally fatal opinion" about salvation of those in other religions. These wise words of Pius IX should just be pondered on this question - in silence.

Errorem alterum nec minus exitiosum aliquas catholici orbis partes occupasse non sine moerore novimus, animisque insedisse plerumque catholicorum, qui bene sperandum de aeterna illorum omnium salute putant, qui in vera Christi Ecclesia nequaquam versantur. Idcirco percontari saepenumero solent, quaenam futura post minime addicti sunt, vanissimisque adductis rationibus responsum praestolantur, quod pravae huic sententiae suffragetur. Absit, Venerabiles Fratres, ut misericordiae divinae, quae infinita est, terminos audeamus apponere; absit, ut perscrutari velimus arcana consilia et iudicia Dei, quae sunt abyssus multa [Ps. 36:6], nec humana queunt cogitatione penetrari. Quod vero apostolici Nostri muneris est, episcopalem vestram et sollicitudinem et vigilantiam excitatam volumus, ut, quantam potestis contendere, opinionem illam impiam aeque ac funestam ab hominum mente propulsetis, nimirum quavis in religione reperiri posse aeternae salutis viam. Ea qua praestatis sollertia ac doctrina demostretis commissis curae vestrae populis, miserationi ac iustitiae divinae dogmata catholicae fidei neutiquam adversari.

Not without sorrow have we learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Bretheren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and "judgments of God" which are "a great deep" [Psalms 36:6] and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as Our Apostolic duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive from the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with that skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.

Tendendum quippe ex fide est, extra apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam salvum fieri neminem posse, hanc esse unicam salutis arcam, hanc qui non fuerit ingressus, diluvio periturum; sed tamen pro certo pariter habendum est, qui verae religionis ignorantia laborent, si ea sit invincibilis, nulla ipsos obstringi huiusce rei culpa ante oculos Domini. Nunc vero quis tantum sibi arroget, ut huiusmodi ignorantiae designare limites quaet iuxta populorum, regionum, ingeniorum aliarumque rerum tam multarum rationem et varietatem? Enimvero cum soluti corporeis hisce vinculis videbimus Deum sicuti est [1 Io. 3:2], intelligemus profecto, quam arcto pulchroque nexu miseterris versamur mortali hac gravati mole, quae hebetat animam, firmissime teneamus ex catholica docrtrina unum Deum esse, unam fidem, unum baptisma [Eph. 4:5]; ulterius inquirendo progredi nefas est.

For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; 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. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.

PIUS IX

[Ex Allocutione << Singulari quadam >>, 9. Dec. 1854.]

tornpage

[MRyan]

Roguejim,

Thanks for giving Fr. Harrison a chance to defend himself; which he has ably done.

I challenged Mac to produce the actual words of the directive that say what he alleges, and we see the result; Fr. Harrison read the actual directive, provided examples of other official interventions that were never published in the Acta, and stands completely vindicated.

Not that this will slow down the “arm-chair” experts in ecclesiology and canon law who will continue to insist that the Letter is “formally defective” (and thus, practically speaking, worthless) and that Roman Congregations are obligated, if they want their intervention to be “official”, to publish all disciplinary and doctrinal matters, thus taking away any option of discretion.

In the “for what its worth” department, if the Letter was of such clarifying doctrinal value as Fr. Fenton said it was, then it was most certainly "suitable for general knowledge" and, IMHO, should have been entered into the Acta when the Holy Office ordered AB Cushing to have it published in 1952. But the Holy Office obviously did not see it the same way and was perhaps more concerned with keeping a lid on an embarrassing disciplinary intervention in a sordid affair concerning a renowned American Jesuit poet, theologian and author.

Another consideration of the Holy Office might have been concern for exactly what transpired when the Letter was published: The liberal interpretation of the secular press which can no more recognize difficult theological distinctions than liberals and dogmatic purists. The press would headline that the Church had changed its position on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and that there is in fact salvation "outside the Church". The Holy Office Letter said no such thing ... but the rest is history.

My sense is that it was AB Cushing who pressed the Holy Office to have him publish what was clearly marked “private” in order to give public witness to the severe disciplinary measure that was in the works if Fr. Feeney would not cooperate (excommunication).

One cannot help but wonder what the final outcome would have been if Fr. Feeney had reported to Rome when summoned (as he originally intended). At least, one would think, when removed from the hot seat in Boston he helped inflame; he would have been given the opportunity to defend his doctrinal position face-to-face. Would he have been open to correction with respect to a correct interpretation of “desire” (that so-called “diabolic” word) and the Encyclical and Allocution of Pope Pius IX on invincible ignorance?

Probably not; but it would have been an interesting encounter, nonetheless.

[Roguejim]

From an email I received from the non-Feeneyite, canon lawyer Pete Vere:


"Does the fact that [the Letter]it was not entered in the ACTA diminish its authority or authenticity?"

No, because the intent of the Holy See is clear. Also, Romans have a somewhat broader understanding than Anglophones of what it means to publish. It essentially means "to be made known", and thus the Holy See has several means to publish.


Pax Christi,
Pete Vere


So, what to make of the "ACTA argument"?
_________________
Jim

[Guest]

From Fr. Harrison:

"Dear Mr. XX,
I just looked up the original Latin text of Promulgandi and your correspondent has misquoted it. According to him, St. Pius X in 1908 said that the ASS (he means AAS), from the following year onward, was to be “the only official press of the Holy See for the doctrinal and disciplinary problems.” But the words "doctrinal and disciplinary problems" nowhere appear in this papal Constitution.
What the Pope said is that AAS is to be the only place of official promulgation "for those acts of the Holy See that need promulgation". Obviously, that means not all official Vatican decisions are the sort that do in fact need promulgation - which is exactly what I said in my article. It is laws that need promulgation in order to be command obedience, and the 1949 letter was not a law, but a piece of doctrinal instruction. Pope Pius X continues here by saying that he also wants to be published in the AAS those other documents which the competent Vatican officials judge to be "suitable for general knowledge".
So all this supports the position I took in my own article (which I ran by a Doctor in Canon Law prior to publishing it). In the same article, if I remember rightly, I have referred to decisions of the Vatican's Sacred Penitentiary about intimate conjugal relations (periodic continence) which were sent out to Bishops round the world to pass on quietly to Confessors, but which were never published in the AAS, because they were clearly delicate matters and not the sort of thing Rome (at that time in history) wanted to spread abroad as matters of "general (or common) knowledge". It appears the same decision was made about the 1949 Letter: for reasons best known to themselves, Pius XII and his advisers didn't want to broadcast the Feeney controversy all over the Catholic world. But that doesn't stop these Holy Office and Sacred Penitentiary decisions from being authentic, even if rather low-level (non-infallible) doctrinal decisions of the See of Peter.
In short, there is nothng in this 1908 document that suggests that no papal or Vatican doctrinal statement is to be considered official and authentic unless it is published in the AAS. And that approach constantly taken by the Holy See itself. (For instance, to take an example of a document I have just been consulting, the Vatican's Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine quotes many minor speeches and other documents of popes on social questions that were never published in the AAS. Yet simply by including them in the Compendium the Vatican shows it considers them official.)
God bless,
Fr. Harrison"

"It was begun in 1865, under the title of "Acta Sanctæ Sedis in
compendium redacta etc.", and on 23 May 1904 was declared an organ of
the Holy See to the extent that all documents printed in it were
considered "authentic and official". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acta_Sanctae_Sedis

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01111c.htm

[Sponsored content]