And the History of Saint Benedict Center
VI
In April 1949 the controversy came to a head. Four teachers, three professors at Boston College and one at BC High, were fired for accusing the Jesuits of teaching heresy, and for reporting this to the Superior General.
Father William L. Keleher, president of BC, told newspaper reporters the reason for their dismissal. They were spreading ideas “contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church” that lead to “bigotry and intolerance.”
For publicly defending the teachers, Father Feeney was silenced by Archbishop Cushing and the Center placed under interdict. Appeals to the Archbishop, to the Jesuits and to Rome received no response.
On September 3, 1949, four months later, The Pilot, the Archdiocesan newspaper, carried the headlines: “Holy Office* Condemns Teaching and Actions of St. Benedict’s Center.” (*Now the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith)
The article announced that Archbishop Cushing received a letter from Rome, bearing the signature of His Eminence Cardinal Marchetti-Salveggiani. This letter, it was said, answered the “opinions and contentions of Saint Benedict Center.”
Only parts of the letter from the Holy Office were reprinted in The Pilot. Archbishop Cushing immediately sent notices to the parishes and religious houses throughout the archdiocese commanding silence on the matter. There were to be no sermons or even conversations about the doctrine. This was indeed a rather strange “decree” from Rome and an even stranger one from the archbishop. Rome had supposedly passed final judgment on a doctrinal issue and no one can talk about it? The full text of the letter was not published in The Pilot until three years later — in September 1952.
The doctrinal significance of this letter cannot be underestimated. It is frequently quoted as the “authoritative” statement about the doctrine on salvation. Yet, its non-infallible teaching does not, because it cannot, nullify the numerous infallible statements previously made on this subject. It is the classic illustration of a revealed truth being “re-interpreted.”
“Outside the Church there is no salvation” is an “infallible doctrine,” the letter states. “However, this dogma must be understood in the sense in which the Church itself understands it. For our Savior did not grant the explanation of the truths of the deposit of faith to private interpretation, but restricted this prerogative to the magisterium of the Church.”
There were no “private interpretations” coming from Saint Benedict Center – but rather the Church’s definitive teaching on the subject. As for understanding the dogma “in the sense in which the Church itself understands it…”
*Blessed Pius IX (1846-78) taught that no distinction is to be made between dogma as it is defined and its meaning. Dogma must be understood “by the very sense by which it is defined.”
*Vatican I (1869–70) decreed “… that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” Dei Filius, Ch 4
*Pope St. Pius X (1903-14) in the Oath Against Modernism rejected the “development of dogma” as a change from one meaning to another. “Nothing else is to be believed other than the words,” taught the pope. The truth is absolute, unchangeable, according to Pope St. Pius X – it “is to be understood in no other way than by the words.”
The letter also claimed that the Center’s position contradicts the pronouncements of Pius XII concerning the relationship to the Church of those who are not of the Fold. The reference here is to the encyclical Mystici Corporis of 1943.
But Pope Pius XII states very clearly that: “only those to be included as members of the Church are those who have been baptized and profess the true faith.”
Again in paragraph #22, Pius teaches that those “divided by faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a body, nor living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
He concluded his letter with an appeal to non-Catholics – and this is deliberately mistranslated in the letter to Archbishop Cushing. In addressing those who are not yet members of the Church, Pope Pius XII declared that the Church desires “nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly.” He already said those separated from the faith and unity of the Church “cannot be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
“For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church.” #103
Though other religions may possess some elements of truth – whether they realize it or not - what they have of truth rightfully belongs to Christ’s Church, the recipient and guardian of the truth. This may be enough to establish “a certain relationship” with the Church but nothing more.
The letter to Archbishop Cushing goes far beyond Pius’ “certain relationship.” It describes those outside the Church as those “who unsuspectingly belong to the Mystical Body by some kind of desire and longing.”
The letter also states:
Christ “established the church as the sole means of salvation, without which (sine quo) no one can enter the kingdom of heavenly glory.”
It should be noted that the definitive, infallible teaching is “outside the Church there is no salvation,” “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” not “sine ecclesiam nulla salus” - “without the Church there is no salvation.”
The twist assumes that non-believers can be saved, even when they do not renounce their errors or enter the Church because their sincerity somehow links them to the Church. One little word (sine) is all it takes to undermine a foundational dogma of the faith.
What Father Feeney particularly objected to was the letter’s affirmation that: “It is not always necessary that one be incorporated as a member of the Church actually to attain eternal salvation, but it is required that one at least be joined by wish or desire.” It further states that this “wish” can even be implicit – that is, somehow present in a person ignorant of the true Church and its teaching.
The Council of Trent clearly teaches the necessity of faith and baptism – that these are the indispensable means for justification and salvation. These indispensable means are the road to the goal, the means to the end. This being so, even if you sincerely take the wrong road you cannot arrive at the desired destination. According to Trent, an implicit desire isn’t even enough to get somebody justified, let alone saved!
This undoubtedly is not “the sense in which the Church herself understands this dogma.” To pretend Trent teaches that implicit desire is sufficient for salvation is wishful thinking.
Along the same lines, Modernists were attempting to mystically unite non-believers and partial believers to the Mystical Body as members of the “Soul” of the Church. This theory of vague membership attributable to some kind of “spiritual” connection with the Church was spread despite the clear teaching on the matter by Pope Leo XIII; “Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her soul.” Divinum Illud
Again, Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis quotes this passage from Leo XIII and elaborating on it adds that while the Spirit of Jesus Christ (the Holy Spirit) “by His grace… provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body.”#55
He states elsewhere in the same encyclical, “For in one Spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body…” 1Cor. 12:13
As previously cited from the same encyclical, it follows that those who are not united by faith and communion (government) with the true Church “cannot be living in the unity of such a body…” #21
For more on the theological questions concerning salvation see the suggested reading list at end of this article.
VII
The dogma on salvation has been an integral part of Catholic teaching and Catholic life throughout the Church’s history. Revealed by God, preserved in Sacred Scripture, taught with infallible authority by the Church, defended by the Fathers and Doctors…
What more proof do we need, what more proof could we have for the truth of this teaching? This truth filtered down to the clergy and faithful through the liturgical, sacramental, and devotional life of the Church.
In the Divine Office - every Sunday - the Athanasian Creed was recited:
“Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith… Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally…”
This was deleted in the revised liturgy.
Every time a convert was received into the Church the “Abjuration of Heresy or Profession of Faith” was made by the person becoming Catholic:
“I _______, having before me the holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands, and knowing that no one can be saved without that faith which the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church holds, believes and teaches, against which I grieve that I have greatly erred…”
This is no longer required.
It was a truth the saints died defending. Saints Peter Mavimenus (Feb 21), Catherine of Alexandria (Nov 25), Cosmas and Damian (Sep 27) each died professing this doctrine – and because they professed it.
St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher died for the doctrine that there is no salvation without personal submission to the Pope.
Many thousands of martyrs gave their lives during the “Reformation” – rather than deny that there is one true Church – outside of which there is no salvation.
Many thousands of missionaries gave their lives attempting to bring the message of salvation to distant lands and peoples lead into ignorance and denial of the truth by their ancestors.
The Church officially prayed for the conversion of all not of the fold. Our Lady, Refuge of Sinners, is implored for poor heretics, schismatics, and all those “miserably enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly know that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which neither holiness nor salvation can be found…” Indulgence 500 days granted by Pope Pius IX, Raccolta, No. 579
And how quickly, since the “Boston Heresy” case, this teaching was denied and abandoned.
A rather curious fact about the letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing in 1949 “explaining” the dogma on salvation – is that it was never included in or listed as one of the Vatican’s official decrees. These are published in what is known as the Acta Apostolicae Sedis – “The Acts of the Apostolic See.” The entire text was not printed anywhere until after the death of the writer, Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, a few years later.
Nearly ten years later, the letter was inserted into the well-known handbook of dogmatic teaching, Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum. The editor responsible for this was none other than Karl Rahner, S.J., the liberal theologian whose influence on the Church, particularly at Vatican II, is still very much with us today. Now, thanks to Rahner, the letter to Archbishop Cushing is looked upon as an authoritative decree.
By slipping it into the Enchiridion, Rahner gave the impression that the infallible, definitive teachings of popes and councils must be understood only in the light of this letter – a document never acknowledged by Rome as bearing the authority of an official act, let alone an authoritative pronouncement.
