The Boston Heresy Case refers to historic magisterial heresy in the Catholic Church : practical consequences in the archdiocese of Palermo
Here is an Interesting but theologically flawed article by Tracy Kline written for the leftist Boston College which discriminates on the basis of religion, especially if you are a practising Catholic.
She assumes that Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy instead of Archbishop Cushing, the Jesuits and the magisterium in Rome.
She does not address the fundamental theological issue - the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are always invisible cases and so they were never ever relevant or exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). As Chris Ferrara says- there can be no practical exceptions to EENS. Zero cases of something are not exceptions to EENS said John Martignoni. Baptism of desire(BOD) and i8nvincible ignorance (I.I) are not exceptions to EENS says the present Vice Rector and former Dean of Theology at the University of St. Anselm Rome, Fr. Stefano Visintin osb.
Boston College was teaching unorthodoxy and heresy and this is common sense.One does not have to be a theologian to note it.
I think the writer understands the theological implications but is biased towards Boston College.The Left has controlled the narrative on Fr. Leonard Feeney and the Boston Heresy of the Archbishop of Boston and even the tradtitionalists have accepted it , with the lead being given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Here are extracts from her article, which is biased towards the Jewish Left, with my comments..-L.A
Salvation Outside the Church: Leonard Feeney and The Boston Heresy Case
On April 13, 1949, Boston College President William L. Keleher discharged four faculty members in what was to become one of the university‟s most notorious controversies.Fakhri Maluf, James Walsh, Charles Ewaski, and David Supple, all educators at Boston College and members of a local Catholic Center, had accused the university of heretical teaching and refused to retract the charge.
Lionel: The Boston College President William L. Keleher refused to accept the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, outside the Church there are no exceptions and no known exceptions for us human beings.
Affirming that Catholicism was the one, true Church, they rejected Boston College‟s stance that a man could effect his own salvation without being one of its members –and continually spoke, according to Keleher, “in class and out of class on matters contrary to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.”
Lionel:This would have been heresy and an innovation in the Church and so they were objecting to it.
Saint Benedict Center, the group to which these men belonged, was a local organization in Cambridge, Massachusetts, led by Rev. Leonard Feeney. Feeney, a former Boston College professor who had gained considerable prestige as a writer, vigorously supported the ousted Boston College educators and appealed to Rome to sustain their doctrinal views. The Center‟s ensuing controversy with the Catholic Church soon captured national attention, giving rise to what has been popularly designated the Boston Heresy Case.
Lionel: The secular media supported the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushingi and the President of Boston College. They criticized Fr. Leonard Feeney for his traiditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.The Jewish Left newspapers stated that the Catholic Church had changed its teachings on salvation. The Boston Heresy now referred to the tradtiional teaching on salvation held by Fr. Leonard Feeney and the four dismissed professors of Boston College. The ecclesiastical Masons had struck in a big way. They had eliminated the dogma and stopped Fr. Leonard Feeney's preaching.
The Boston Heresy case constituted a decisive theological moment within the twentieth century, through which the Catholic Church asserted its stance on its controversial extra ecclesiam nulla salus doctrine. Leonard Feeney and his followers at Saint BenedictCenter utilized this phrase to justify exclusivist ideologies strictly interpreting it to affirm that only baptized Catholics could achieve salvation. Distressed by the growing secularization of American institutions and liberalizing trends throughout Catholicism,
Lionel. The Holy Office and the ecclesiastics at Boston chose a new theology for the Catholic Church in which invisible cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were assumed 1) to exclude the baptism of water in the Church 2) and were physically visible and personally known in specific cases, for them to be exceptions to the tradtiional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Feeney condemned Boston College for perpetuating what he deemed heretical ideas
namely, that salvation could be achieved outside the Church.
Lionel: This was heretical and would contradict the dogma EENS and Jesus teaching in the Bible (John 3:5, Mark 16:16).It would contradict numerous saints including St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St.Frqancis Xavier, St.Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Theresa of Avila etc.
The highly publicized doctrinal controversy this incited forced the Church to clarify its stance on salvation for non-Catholics while ultimately rendering Feeney and his Center to historical infamy.
Lionel: In un-precedented magisterial heresy the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontiticate of Pope Pius XII affimed invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc were visible exceptions to all needing to enter the Church to avoid the fires of Hell. This was a new doctrine based on an irrational premise.This was magisterial irrationality which was included in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).The new theology was based on a philosophical error and the philosopphical error is all over Vatican Council II.It could seem amusing for someone who tracks it.
Its historical roots,cultural impetuses, and lasting impacts on Catholic doctrine will here be examined, supplemented by exploration of the growth and ultimate division of Saint Benedict Center in
conjunction with Leonard Feeney‟s personal background and eventual reconciliation with the Catholic Church.
Lionel: The irrationality which was the basis of a new theology is no where discussed in this article.The writer does not have a clue to it. In this sense this article is limited and flawed.
The Latin phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been subject to extensive
controversy throughout the centuries. Literally meaning, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” this Catholic axiom was coined by Cyprian of Carthage in his On the Unity of the Church
(251). Cyprian argued that Jesus‟ proclamation that “Unless you eat the flesh of theSon of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53) implied that only thosewho received the Catholic sacraments would be saved. Popes throughout the Middle Ages,most notably Innocent III in 1215 and Boniface VIII in 1302, reaffirmed this interpretation, avowing that salvation required a sacramental connection to the Catholic Church.
Substantial debate subsequently arose between those who strictly interpreted this phrase and those who advocated a liberal interpretation. While the former group argued that only baptized Catholics were afforded salvation, the latter contended for an invisible Church whereby even those who were not officially baptized into the Catholic faith could be saved.Leonard Feeney and his followers fell within this former category,...
Feeney, along with many Catholic priests at the time,staunchly resisted modernist thinking and what he perceived to be the liberalization of Catholic doctrine. When ordained in 1938, he was required to take an Oath Against Modernism as proscribed by Pope Pius X, which stated: “
I wholly and entirely reject the falseinvention of the evolution of dogmas, whereby they pass from one meaning to a meaningother than that formerly held by the Church.”
Lionel: Last March 2016 Pope Benedict XVI in the daily Avvenire stated that EENS was no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries. He said that the dogma had evolved with Vatican Council II. He meant that Vatican Council II ( Cushingism) assumed there are visilble and known exceptions to the dogma EENS. So for him there is salvation outside the Church. LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, unlike for me, would refer to physically visible and known cases for Pope Benedict. This is modernism.he contradicts the Oath Against Modernism and the same modernism is supported by the Society of St. Pius X and sedevacantist bishops and priests who have had their formation under Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
The Oath Against Modernism is now meaningless. Even Bishop Athanasiius Schneider who has called for a Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II, interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism and is a modernist.
In April 1949, President Keleher asked Maluf, Walsh, Ewaskio, and Supple to retracttheir unorthodoxy charges or be dismissed from the university. The men refused, claimingthat college authorities were violating their consciences as teachers. They were, in turn,summarily terminated. Keleher explained his rationale for the dismissal, affirming, “They had had been cautioned by me and others in authority here to stay within their own field and leave theology to those who were adequately and competently prepared.” Citing their continued defiance, Keleher called their doctrine “erroneous” and avowed that it “could not be tolerated at Boston College.”
Lionel: Maluf, Walsh, Ewaskio, and Supple were interpretating extra ecclesiam nulla salus without assuming that the baptism of desire case was always visible. It was physically invisible for them.
President Keleher, Cardinal Cushing, the Jesuits at Boston and the cardinals in Rome were interpretating extra ecclesiam nulla salus assuming that the baptism of desire case was always physically visible and it was not invisible. In this way it was an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they concluded that there was salvation outside the Church.
This problems continues even today in the Church. Extra ecclesam nulla salus and Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the baptism of desire being considered visible or invisible and there will be two different conclusions. One of them has to be modernism.
Today priest- professors at pontifical universities in Rome. who do not choose the modernistic interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus would be fired.
On April 21, 1949, the Roman Catholic Church issued a new Catechism that asserted its stance on the extra ecclesiam axiom. A revision of the Baltimore Catechism, which was first published in 1880 and had become standard in nearly every American dioceses, the revised Catechism “state[d] that persons may be saved outside Catholicism ,if they do not know that it is the true church‟ and if they ,make use of the graces God gives them.‟”
The extra ecclesiam nulla salus doctrine, it affirmed, “only applies to those who through their own grave fault do not know that the Catholic Church is the true church or, knowing it,refuse to join it.”
The revision, prepared by the Confraternity of Christian Dogma, clearly refuted Feeney‟s views, effectively squelching the Center‟s optimism for Vatican support.
Lionel: This was the new doctrine based on known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance. Based on a philosophical error a new theology was created rejecting the dogma EENS. This was heresy. It was also material schism by the Americanists.
How can we know of someone on earth saved without the baptism of water but with invincible ignorance? No one can know of any such case.How can be physically see people in Heaven or on earth saved in invincible ignorance ? So how can being saved in invincible ignorance be relevant to the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Fr. Leonard Feeney?
Yet this flawed reasoning would be repeated in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and then in Vatican Council II.The Masons had decided that the dogma must go, one way or another.
More substantively, the Center sent a document to Pope Pius XII on September 24, 1952 containing a two-pronged attack.“The first prong charged Archbishop Cushing with heresy for permitting the dissemination of the teaching that there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. The second prong attacked the validity of the 8 August 1949 Protocol.
Lionel: There could be no known salvation outside the Church for us human beings.In 1949 no one knew of any one saved outside the Church. In 1952 no one could have known of someone saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, Vatican Council II). So the 1949 Protocal was objectively flawed. We cannot see ghosts who are exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.
We cannot theorize that someone in the past could be an exception to the dogma EENS in the present times.
We cannot say that a possibility in the past means that there is an actual case in the present times, there is an actual exception to the dogma for example in 2017.
There never were and nor are any exceptions. The 1949 Protocal made a factual error.
Shmaruk explains, “„Fr. Feeney‟s excommunication had nothing at all to do with the theological issue of salvation,‟ but with disobedience, the penalty „after twenty-five yearshad served its purpose and was no longer necessary or, indeed, helpful in finding a solutionto the Church s problem with Leonard Feeney
Lionel: Theology was the fundamental issue. Fr: Shmaruk accepted the new Cushingite theology based on invisible cases without the baptism of water were visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS. This was the new official theology of the Church.It was magisterial. It was accepted by Rome.
The removal of Feeney‟s censures, they furthermore agreed, would be publicly announced only after his death thereby allowing Feeney to live in peace within his community to the end of his days.
Lionel: It shows you how devious was the ecclesiastical Masonry at that time. They did not want the people to know that based on an irrationality they had eliminated the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It was for some 19 years too that they did not lift the excommunication. Right throughout Vatican Council II they let the Council Fathers and the world believe that there was a new reasoning on salvation. Hypothetical cases were relevant and exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So Vatican Council II in a kind of comedy mentions LG 16, LG 8,Na 2, UR 3, GS 22 as if they are not speculative but actual, concrete examples of salvation outside the Church.
Feeney‟s reconciliation with the Catholic Church was determined solely on grounds of pastoral concern. The Church lifted Feeney‟s excommunication without requiring any
penance or statement of wrongdoing, in turn leaving the doctrinal issue untouched.
Lionel. The new doctrines on salvation based on hypothetical cases being visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was now the official teaching of the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would accept it.
.The Feeney controversy indeed prompted the Church to clarify its stance on the
extraecclesiam nulla salus doctrine. On August 8, 1949, the Holy Office issued Suprema haec Sacra which, approved by Pope Pius XII, rejected Feeney‟s strict interpretation of the axiom.
That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it isnecessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is incatechumens; but when a person is involved in invincibleignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because itis included in that good disposition of soul whereby a personwishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
Lionel: 'That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member,' is heresy based on the irrationality of visible cases of the baptism of desire and known salvation outside the Church.We now have fantasy theology in the Church, the dead-man-walking-and-visible theory.
The document denounced Karam‟s “Liberal Theology and Salvation” as contrary to Catholic
teaching and personally censured Fr. Feeney, setting the stage for the Ecumenical Movementin the Catholic Church as well as Vatican Council II.
Lionel: Since there were personally known cases of people saved outside the Church for the magisterium there could now be the Anonymous Christian Theory of Rahner and Ratzinger. There were known cases of Protestants and other Christians saved outside the Church for the magisterium so the International Theological Commission in one of its papers mentions a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. It was approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the present secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j.
Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma EENS said the apologist John Martignoni. But for Ratzinger and Ladaria there were no zero cases. There are no practical exceptions to the dogma EENS says Chris Ferrara. But for the magisterium there were. The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus said Fr. Stefano Visintin osb. He is the present Vice Rector and former Dean of Theology at the University of St.Anselm Rome.So all is not lost in the Church.
The 1962 Second Vatican Council confirmed the extra ecclesiam principle.
Lumen Gentium, its document on the Church promulgated on November 21, 1964 by Pope Paul VI, articulated,“Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, [the Council] teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. . . . Whosoever,therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse toenter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, [the Council] teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. . . . Whosoever,therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse toenter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
The passage in blue is traditional EENS according to the four professors at Boston College suspended.The passage in red refers to the innovation in the Church based on known cases of salvation outside the Church, specifically, in invincible ignorance.
I call the passage in blue Feeneyism and the passage in red Cushingism.
The majority of Catholics interpreted this statement as affirming that those who were not in a position to recognize the necessity of believing in Christ or joining the Catholic Church may be saved, as long as they were positively related to Christ and the Church.
Lionel: This is the new theology, it is Cushingism. It is based on hypothetical cases being exception to the dogma EENS.
However the same passage in red can be re-interpreted.It can be converted into Feeneyism.This gives us hope for the future.
We simply have to be aware that the passage in red refers to a hypothetical case. So it is not an exception to Feeneyite EENS, the passage in blue.So there are no exceptions mentioned in Lumen Gentium or elsewhere in Vatican Council II, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries for example.
Though this remains the prevailing view, the Church has yet to formulate a view on the extra ecclesiam principle with final clarity or precision.
Lionel: The Church has to identify Cushingism as being irrational, non traditional and heretical it is an innovation in the Church based on a philosophical error.
The Boston Heresy of the magisterium has practical consequences today. For example in Palermo, Italy the Archbishop is calling for unity based on heresy. He interprets Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism and expects the whole diocese to do the same.