While some of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart, as pseudo-relgious order founded by the woman Fr. Feeney derived his teachings from have been received back into the Church, and it was the later Cardinal Archbishop of Boston who promulgated the letter, it was the Holy OFfice, (now the Office of Doctrine and the Faith) which sent the letter to Boston to be published with the approval and blessings of Pope Pius XII. The letter condemning the very narrow and strict defining teachings of the St. Benedict Center is quoted in part below.

[quote:1shoscyd]…We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this 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.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).

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 charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. ” title=”Cool” />: “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (<Denzinger>, n. 801).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops “whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church” (Acts 20:28).

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the “<imprimatur,>“ which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.[/quote:1shoscyd]
As to Unum Sanctum, the problem with it being used as an infallible pronouncement is that it only appears in parts as the original Bull has been lost, it seems that it was a reply to a statement by King Philip IV, King of France and cannot be understood outside the context of a conflict between the increasing power of secular rulers in France and England attempts to tax the clergy to support warfare not authorized by the Pope. To be an Infallible statement of the Pope, it would have had to be addressed to the entire Church, and fulfil the other requirements of an Ex Cathedra statement. As it seems that it was addressed to Rulers of countries which had felt that their authority was superior to the Pope when it came to taxing the Church and clergy, and to enter into wars against other Catholic Kingdoms, it was not applied to all, therefore not Infallible.

If you re-read the posting, I mentioned that some of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart were a pseudo-religious order. While the group in Wooster was recieved back into communion, and are premitted to teach their position, it was also agreed that it was just that a position or belief that was not Dogmatic. As the Church has not officially pronounced on the subject they must admit that it is only an opinion and not Dogmatic. The other groups that have not been reconciled, some who live here in Los Angeles, hold the hard line position of Extra Ecclesia to be Dogmatic, and despite the Holy Office’s guidance on the subject hold their postion to be the only one.

As to Fr. Feeney’s excommunication, while the Slaves hold he was not excommunicated for his positon on the subject, but for his disobedience, as a manner of arguing that the Church did not find his position in error, that is a canard. His disobedience was in fact not ending the public teaching of Extra Ecclesia in the narrow sense he and “Sr.” Catherine Goddard Clarke, who first promoted the positon, and later dressed as a nun even though she never went though any religious formation, and remained married. Fr. Feeney and the Slaves who were never canonically erected, lived in disobedience until Fr. Feeney was recieved back into the full communion with the Church. Cardinal Mederos made it clear it was out of the love for souls, and desire that the Church show compassion not Fr. Feeney’s repentance that prompted the resumption of communion of the adged and ill Fr. Feeney.

Here however is a chronology of Fr. Feeney’s actions and those of the Church.

On April 18, 1949, Fr. Feeney was suspended from his priestly duties and Catholics were forbidden to take part in the activities of St. Benedict Center. Fr. Feeney responded the next day by saying that his removal from St. Benedict Center was invalid, One of his superiors, Fr. Louis Gallagher, called Fr. Feeney to tell him that the sanctions would be lifted if he left St. Benedict Center and went to Holy Cross College. But Fr. Feeney refused to leave. He invoked his conscience as a justification for remaining at St. Benedict Center. He said in a statement prepared for the press:” ‘IT WAS AND IS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE to me in the sanctity of my priesthood, as I openly declared to every superior I could contact.’ “[Ibid., p. 125.] A few days later, on April 21, 1949, Fr. Feeney received another command from his Provincial Superior to go to Holy Cross College. This command was given to him in virtue of Fr. Feeney’s vow of obedience. It was therefore binding under pain of mortal sin. Fr. Feeney again refused to go.

Three and a half months later, on August 8, 1949, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office wrote to Archbishop Cushing on the subject of the necessity of the Church for salvation. [NB: The full text of the letter was published in October of 1952 in The American Ecclesiastical Review CXXVII, 4 (Oct., 1952), pp. 307-315.] This decree of the Holy Office was voted on in plenary session on Wednesday, July 27, 1949. The Prefect of the Holy Office, Pope Pius XII, approved the decree on Thursday, July 28, 1949. This decree was a response to the controversy that arose in the wake of Fr. Feeney’s interpretation of the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Even though this decree was approved by Pope Pius XII who, as we mentioned, was the Prefect of the Holy Office, Fr. Feeney would later refer to it as” ‘This heretical letter…’ “[Thid.]

Considering that the acts of disobedience on the part of Fr. Feeney were both grave and numerous and that he intended to persevere in the dispositions that produced these acts and thus had no intention of amending his ways, Fr. Feeney was expelled from the Jesuit Order on October 10, 1949. On September 4, 1952, Archbishop Cushing summoned Fr. Feeney to appear before him no later than October 4, 1952. He called upon Fr. Feeney to make his submission to the local ordinary and to the Holy See. Fr. Feeney was informed that the Congregation of the Holy Office, with the approval of Pope Pius XII, had put him, Fr. Feeney. and St. Benedict Center under interdict.

On September 24, 1952, a letter was sent from St. Benedict Center to Pope Pius XII in which the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office was charged with heresy. The heresy, the letter said, was contained in the August 8, 1949, letter entitled “Letter of the Holy Office to tile Archbishop of Boston.”

On October 25, 1952, Cardinal Pizzardo, who was then the Secretary of the Holy Office, wrote to Fr. Feeney from Rome, and in the name of the Holy Office. He said:

“The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.

“However, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, in His tender regard and paternal solicitude for the eternal welfare of souls committed to His supreme charge, has decreed that, before any other measure be carried into effect, you be summoned to Rome for a hearing. Therefore, in accordance with the express bidding and by the special authority of the Supreme Pontiff, you are hereby ordered to proceed to Rome forthwith and there to appear before the Authorities of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office as soon as possible” [Ibid., p.150.]

Fr. Feeney did not obey this summons. He responded instead with a letter dated October 30, 1952. The following month, in November of 1952, Fr. Feeney received a second letter summoning him to Rome. He was ordered to present himself before the Holy Office no later than December 31, 1952. He was told that if he failed to obey, his disobedience would be made public along with the canonical penalties. Fr. Feeney was also informed that his expenses for the trip to Rome would be paid by the Apostolic Delegate.

But Fr. Feeney refused to comply with this second command to appear before the Holy Office. Instead he responded with a long letter dated December 2, 1952. In early January 1953, Fr. Feeney received yet a third letter from Rome. By this letter he was ordered to appear before the Holy Office no later than January 31, 1953, under pain of excommunication for failure to appear.

Fr. Feeney refused to go. Once again he disobeyed the command of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and this for the third time. He responded with another letter, dated January 13, 1953, in which he accused the Holy Office of outrageous, barbarous behavior and with heresy. On February 4, 1953, the Holy Office met in Plenary Session and declared Fr. Leonard Feeney to be excommunicated. The decree of excommunication was dated February 13, 1953. The text is as follows:

“Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended from his priestly duties on account of grave disobedience of Church Authority, being unmoved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, has not submitted, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday, 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

“On Thursday, 12 February 1953, Our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.

“Given at Rome, at the Headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.” [Ibid., p. 158.]

What is so strange about the whole thing is that when Fr. Feeney was given the opportunity to appear before the Holy Office, where he could defend his charge of heresy and his interpretation of the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation,” he refused to take it. Is that the behavior of a great defender of Catholic orthodoxy? Would not a great defender of Catholic truth welcome such an opportunity to defend the truth? But Fr. Feeney did not defend the truth as he saw it. He did not rise to the occasion. Instead he stayed home. He stayed home and was excommunicated for it.

The Letter from the Holy Office came as the final warning to Fr. Feeney before the Excommunication. Once again his Excommunication was imposed for his disobedience, he refused to stop publishing and preaching his teachings, he refused to return to the Jesuit house where he was ordered to remove himself to. He remained at the Slaves house which was not canonically erected.

That one of the houses (Worchester) has now been rehabilitated and allowed to hold the position they do on Extra Ecclesia, and not condemn Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, is a new event. This one house is now cannonically erected, but was not when Fr. Feeney was in disobedience, the other houses have not been reconciled because they are not willing to maintain their strict opinon regarding Extra Ecclesia without condemning the writings of Pope Pius XII and other Popes and Theologians.

Again, Cardinal Mederios of Boston commented on the reception of Fr. Feeney back into the Church that it was because of the love and compassion of the Church that Fr. Feeney’s excommunication was lifted, no because the Church held his hard line position to be correct.

As to the articles you have posted, they all come from your own blog, and would based on that take the Feenyite position. Hardly an unbiased source. Like many who follow the Slaves and the Feeney spin on things. The Church does not reject the possiblity of the Feeney position, it simply and openly has stated that as we do not know the extent of God’s plan of salvation, that Catholics may believe God has provided other ways that somone who has not heard the Truths of the Faith can be saved. All of those are based on the once sacrifice of our Lord on the Cross, and the superabundant graces that are distributed by the Church, and not by false religions. To take one very narrow interpretation of the issue and on one’s own authority exclude the others before the Church has made an official declaration is quite prideful and presumes one’s superiority to the Magesterium.

There is another parallel today. The Society of St. Pius X, who are very active in the condemnation of Fr. Feeney and also have had their excommunication lifted, (remember only the Bishops were actually excommunicated, putting the priests and lay followers of the Society in peril of excommunication by following them.) However the Society remains without mandate or faculties because they thus far do not accept the authority of the Church. They pay lip service to the Pope, but continue to teach and act as if the Pope and Local Ordinaries do not exhist. The Society puts a spin on their position that they alone are the deposit of the pure faith, and that the Pope is not. So too the Slaves walk that fine line. What makes the Worcester group different is that they are allowed to teach the strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesia, but they also had to admit that it is not dogmatic, and that there are other as of yet defined postions including baptism of desire, and blood and invincible ignorance. The Feeney “brothers” who attend the Latin Mass at the parish I attend however condemn the Local bishop for not accepting their take on the subject, and have attempted to establish a priory in a one bedroom apartment without seeking the permission of the local ordinary, and have members of their priory who have no formation. Without canonical mission they cause discontent and foster disobedience to the local Ordinary by informing people that the Church is wrong and they are correct.

Lionel:

Sadly there is much misinformation regarding Fr. Feeney, his excommunication and the lifting of the excommunication. Even more tragic is the misrepresentation of the Slaves in LA functioning as a canonically erected house. While one house was indeed received, with the understanding that holding the extreme postion of Extra Ecclesia is permitted of Catholics as long as it is not proclaimed as Dogmatic, but one of the Theological Opinons permitted on the subject. As the “Brothers” in Los Angeles are under the Canonical See of Archbishop Gomez, and were subject to Cardinal Mahony when the house in New England was received, they would have to submit to the Local Ordinary to erect a relgious house, and function within the Archdiocese. As the “Brothers” consist of older members who went through the formation which was typical of the Slaves in the 40’s and 50’s, and a couple of members with no formation or religious duties, the Archdiocese not myself would have to evaluate their application.

As Catholics we must hold that it is by the Sacrifice of the Cross, our Lord’s passion and death as well as His rising from the dead that we come to salvation. All the graces of that action are dispensed through the means God gave us, ie the Catholic Church. What membership in that Church means is however a matter of contention between followers of Fr. Feeney and the Magestrium of the Church. Unfortunatly many of the followers of Fr. Feeney have taken the postion that the Church was and is wrong, and Fr. Feeney, was correct. Since there are a half dozen well respected Theologians who have written responses to the errors of Fr. Feeney who’s books are difficult to obtain nowadays and detracted by the followers of Fr. Feeney, I’ll post a link to the EWTN article by the late Fr. Most, who is a well respected, very orthodox writer and theologians. It covers the misrepresentations by the Slaves and their followers. Another by Karl Keating, and the Catholic Culture website.

Mr. Keating writes: Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience. He was reconciled to the Church before his death, and the excommunication was lifted. Some of his followers have tried to construe the reconciliation as a Vatican affirmation of Feeney’s theology, but, since the excommunication did not extend beyond a matter of obedience, the lifting of it did not extend any further.

Mr Mazza of Catholic Culture writes: Fr. Feeney himself, beset with the mental and physical ailments of old age, was reportedly “reconciled” to the Church on November 22, 1972 in the St. Thomas More Bookstore in Cambridge, with the help of a group of members of the Center and some very indulgent diocesan officials. These officials neither pressed Fr. Feeney for a recantation of his theological errors nor even an apology for the harm he may have caused the faithful.

And as I’ve mentioned before the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston commented that he was received back into the Church as an act of compassion to Fr. Feeney, not as an exceptance of his errors.

Much like the SSPX, who incidentally have a massive anti Feeney campaign, the followers of Fr. Feeney seem to have decided that the Church is wrong and they are the only one’s who hold the “Lynch pin” doctrine as Fr. Feeney termed it. If Fr. Feeney was correct, then Blessed Pope Pius IX, and Venerable Pope Pius XII were heretical.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.txt

http://archive.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ … N=31342233

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ … fm?id=2650

Lionel:

Further research on your postings all around the web seem to point to one of a few possibilties. First as you live in Italy and post in English and Italian, I’m hoping that some of your inconsistancies and misinformation is related to an incomplete understanding of english. I would hate to think it is an attempt on your part to mislead others.

[i:3em56vz5]The Los Angeles Slaves, and their connection to the Worster Sisters[/i:3em56vz5]

In conversation with the Brothers over lunch after Mass on Sunday, it would seem that my suspicions were correct. The Los Angeles group is not currently related to the Worster group. Rather they are connected with the New Hampshire “Monastic Community” The New Hampshire group admits openly that they are not canonically erected, or connected to the Worster group. While they call themselves a Religious Order and wear habits, they admit that they are a non-approved group of laymen. The Slaves in Los Angeles have no intention of submitting to the Local Ordinary for reception and do not wish to become canonically erected as they will have to do what the sisters in Worster did.

[i:3em56vz5]What the Sisters in Worster had to do[/i:3em56vz5]
While as I have mentioned previously, it is permitted for one to hold the strict interpretation of EENS, the Sisters like any honest Catholic also had to admit that the strict position is not dogmatic, and that a Catholic may hold BOD and BOB, as well as Invincible Ignorance. The sisters had to agree to this to be able to be regularized and have their houses canonically erected.

[i:3em56vz5]Proclaiming Someone to be heretical[/i:3em56vz5]
You continue to stretch the limits of the truth. While it is true that we have the obligation to point out heretical teachings, you have gone beyond that. First you cite things as being heretical that the Church says are not. Secondly and most importantly neither you nor I have the authority to act as judge and to proclaim someone a heretic whom the Church has not, most of all to act as judge of the Pope, and to make a public proclomation of him being a heretic.

[i:3em56vz5]Faulty Sources[/i:3em56vz5]
You deny any authority to accepted and approved sources which deny your private opinon as having dogmatic authority. You use sources such as the Diamond Brothers, a couple of 30 year old Sede Vacantists who hold that anyone who accepts any Pope after the reign of Pope Pius XII as being an Anti-Pope, and all who accept them as being non-Catholic. They have also stated that anyone who denies the Papacies of Popes since Pope John XXIII, but denies Fr. Feeney’s dogmatic assertions is a non-Catholic. Sadly that makes you a non-Catholic in their eyes, which means that you are excluded from the Church, and by your standpoint, Salvation. I’ll not drag on the other poorly researched sources on your Blog.

[i:3em56vz5]Intellectual dishonesty[/i:3em56vz5]
I’ve never read anywhere that Cardinal Cushing, Pope Pius XII or any other reliable authority in the Catholic Church has claimed what you assert; that an individual who is saved by BOD, BOB, or II is known to anyone except God. You take statements that have no mention of us being able to know or identify such a person, and assert that because we cannot name one person that they don’t exsist. Something not claimed by anyone or included in any argument by anyone but yourself, and a few others who cloud the issue with criteria that nobody else holds to. Hopefully it is just a combination of your faulty english and the poor scholarship of those who your follow.

All in all the Church allows for both the narrow interpretation of EENS and it allows for the belief in BOD, BOB and II, as long as anyone holding any or all of the views does so within the context of the teaching of the Church, that being that Salvation comes to all who God applies it to by the Cross of Christ, and through the Church. Any Non-Catholic who is saved is saved not through their false religions, (which may contain some of the truth) but by the Graces God dispenses through His Church.