Mystici Corporis — to the Protocol — to Vatican II

Mystici Corporis — to the Protocol — to Vatican II

(excerpt from Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation by Br. Robert Mary MICM)

Mr. Drummey’s Reply : Quoting from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis, the letter [Protocol #122/49] said that people can be saved "by an unconscious desire and longing" that gives them "a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer (n. 103).

Correction Please! — First, let us look at Mystici Corporis to see if the Protocol Letter presents accurately what the Pope said.



Near the end of this encyclical, the Holy Father requests the prayers of the whole Church for the return to the Mystical Body of Christ of non-Catholics, "both those who, not yet enlightened by the truth of the gospel, are still without the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from us. . . " Here is the usual, but faulty, translation of the key sentences:

We ask each and every one of them to be quick and ready to follow the interior movements of grace, and to look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though unsuspectingly they are related in desire and resolution to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can enjoy only in the Catholic Church. May they then enter into Catholic unity, and united with us in the organic oneness of the Body of Jesus Christ may they hasten to the one Head in the society of glorious love. . . . We wait for them with open arms to return, not to a stranger’s house, but to their own, their Father’s house. (emphasis ours)

Consider the first sentence. We think it very strange for the Holy Father to say that non-Catholics should "look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation," as the translation would have us believe. The Pope appears to imply two things that are just not so: first, that non-Catholics have an outside chance of gaining salvation where they are; and second, that Catholics can be sure of their salvation. Neither of these implications has ever been a teaching of the Church. In fact, the proposition that Catholics can be sure even of their justification was condemned by the Council of Trent. (Decree on Justification, Chapter IX)

But this is a weak, misleading translation. The original Latin reads: ". . . ab eo statu se eripere studeant, in quo de sempiterna cuiusque propria salute securi esse non possunt;" Translated correctly, the Pope asks that non-Catholics be. . .

. . . zealous and eager to tear themselves out of that state in which it is not possible for them to be without fear regarding their eternal salvation.

The adjective securi means "free from care, unconcerned, fearless." So, we see that the urgent request of the Pope that they "tear themselves out of " their perilous situation has been minimized to "look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation."

Now, the second sentence: notice the phrase printed in italics. There is a mistranslation here which completely alters the obvious meaning of the Holy Father’s request. The Latin reads:

. . . quandoquidem, etiamsi inscio quodam desiderio ac voto ad mysticum Redemptoris Corpus ordinentur, . . .

The abused word is ordinentur. The book, A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, by Roy J. Deferrari, gives us the following meanings for the Latin verb ordino: "Ordino, are, avi, atum — (1) to order, to set in order, to arrange, to adjust, to dispose, (2) to ordain, . . . "

Since the Pope uses the subjunctive mood to express a contingency or uncertainty, not a fact, the translation should read:

For, even though they may be disposed toward (or ordained toward) the mystic Body of the Redeemer by a certain unknowing desire and resolution,. . .

In other words, the only thing this "certain unknowing desire and resolution" (inscio quodam desiderio ac voto) may be doing for these non-Catholics is setting them in order for entrance into, or return to, the Church. In no way does the Pope say, as fact, that they are "related" to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, much less "united" to It.

Here is how the entire paragraph should be translated:

We wish that they, each and every one of them, . . . may be zealous and eager to tear themselves out of that state in which it is not possible for them to be without fear regarding their eternal salvation. For, even though they may be ordained toward the mystic Body of the Redeemer by a certain unknowing desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can enjoy only in the Catholic Church. Let them, therefore, come back to Catholic unity, and united with us in the organic oneness of the Body of Jesus Christ may they hasten to the one Head in the society of glorious love. . . . We wait for them with open arms to return, not to a stranger’s house, but to their own, their Father’s house.

Notice how, in the final sentences, the Holy Father makes it clear that these non-Catholics of good will are not yet "united" to the Church. He says that they must "come back to Catholic unity" in order to be "united with us in the organic oneness of the Body of Jesus Christ."

By incorrectly translating ordinentur into "they are related to," instead of "they may be ordained toward," Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, the author of the Protocol letter to which Mr. Drummey refers, twists the words of Pope Pius XII to mean something he did not say. This is a major deception and could well be one of the reasons why the Cardinal and his colleagues in the Holy Office saw to it that this Letter #122/49 was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and, therefore, forfeits any binding effect as an act of the Holy See.

Nevertheless, in view of this mistranslation of Mystici Corporis and the use made of it in the Protocol Letter of the Holy Office, and in defense of the memory of Pope Pius XII, it certainly is now the duty of the Holy Congregation, at some time and in some manner, to correct the English mistranslation, and to order the removal of the "Letter" from Denzinger. Catholic honor and decency demand that this be done, for to this day, modernists use both of these pieces of disinformation in their unrelenting campaign to destroy the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. On page 133 of his scandalous book, Salvation Outside the Church?, published in 1992, Father Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. even adds to the deception by informing his readers that the key Latin verb used by Pius XII was ordinantur (indicative mood), which he says means "they can be related to."

Mr. Drummey’s Reply (continued): Vatican II repeated that teaching in paragraphs 14-16 of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, particularly when it said: "Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."

Correction — If this were all that Vatican II said in these paragraphs, we would have to say that it erred seriously, and this text ought to be disregarded. But, remember, Vatican II was not a defining Council. It was a pastoral Council. Its lack of dogmatic authority was verified by Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II has repeatedly cautioned us that its many and varied declarations must always be viewed in the light of Tradition. (More sentences were written by the bishops at this one Council than at all the other twenty councils put together!)

But the Council did say more, and it is a very important "more" which Mr. Drummey fails to provide for his readers.

Before getting to that, and in order to make our point clear, let us review briefly the pertinent statements bearing on the Dogma of Faith which have been issued by the Vatican since the beginning of Saint Benedict Center in 1940:

1943 — Mystici Corporis: As just noted, Pope Pius XII is reported to have said that certain non-Catholics are "unsuspectingly. . . related in desire and resolution to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer." We protest this translation of the Holy Father’s words because it is seriously defective. What he actually said was "they may be ordained toward," or "set in order for," this Body. This is important because "are related to" implies a certain affiliation with, while all other meanings indicate only possible preparation for entry into, the Church.

1949 — Protocol #122/49: Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani states in numbered paragraphs:

12. . . . 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 [our emphasis].

13. 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.

14. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter. . . by. . . Pope Pius XII, . . . On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. 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 [our emphasis].

Pope Pius taught nothing of the kind, nor did he make any such distinction. We repeat: Ordinentur means "they may be disposed for." To say it means either "are related to" or "are united to" is a serious mistranslation. And to misrepresent what the Holy Father taught on this vital matter concerning membership in the Church is the height of deceit.

Father Feeney objected strongly to paragraphs 12 and 13. As we shall see now, Vatican Council II was obliged to concede that his objections were valid.

1964 — Vatican Council II: In the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" (Lumen Gentium), Chapter II, paragraph 16, we find the words quoted above by Mr. Drummey:

Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (footnote 59)

The relating footnote 59 refers to the "Letter of Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston." It is clear, then, that this passage is a condensed version of paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Protocol letter, with one very significant difference: the phrase "implicit desire" (votum implicitum), to which Father Feeney objected so strongly, has been eliminated.

Credit Father Feeney with a victory over paragraph 13 of Protocol Letter #122/49!

Back now to Mr. Drummey’s reply: He uses the statements of Vatican II in the same dishonest manner that most liberals employ when they misrepresent the statements of Pope Pius IX. He fails to mention important additional comments which clarify or complete the meaning of what he has quoted. We continue with the words of Lumen Gentium which he ignored:

. . . Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to lead a good life, thanks to His grace. Whatever goodness or truth is found among them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She regards such qualities as given by Him Who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life" (our emphasis).

In his book They Fought the Good Fight, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, M.I.C.M., discusses this specific passage from Lumen Gentium in greater detail than we have gone into here. Note his inescapable conclusion:

So a person of goodwill who is involved in invincible ignorance and has an implicit desire to be joined to the Church, may indeed be saved, but not where he is! Whatever of truth or goodness is found in such a person is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel, and, as Lumen Gentium continues, it is to such persons that the Church "to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all such men, and mindful of the command of the Lord, ‘preach the gospel to every creature,’ . . . painstakingly fosters her missionary work" (2,16).

Credit Father Feeney with a victory over paragraph 12 of Protocol Letter #122/49.

Mr. Drummey’s Reply (continued): Fr. Feeney was excommunicated, but was reconciled with the Church, through the personal efforts of Humberto Cardinal Medeiros, before he died in 1978. Feeney’s community has divided into five groups, with the two largest also now reconciled and living as male and female Benedictine communities in Still River, Massachusetts.

Should not an honest, unbiased reporter advise his readers of the very suspicious circumstances surrounding both the "excommunication" and the "reconciliation?" Should he not mention the fact that Father was not told that he was being reconciled, or that he must retract his positions on the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the theory "baptism by desire?" Or ought he not mention the astounding fact that Father did not ask to be reconciled, had not changed his doctrinal position by one iota, and would have refused to recant had he been asked to do so? Surely, Mr. Drummey knows these facts. If he doesn’t, he has a serious moral obligation to learn them before again aiding the effort to defame a holy Catholic priest.

At the request of Cardinal Medeiros, who suggested it, was saddened at the prospect that Father Feeney might die "outside the Church," Rome approved the "reconciliation" and prescribed the procedure to be followed. Just as in the "excommunication," all canonical procedure was thrown out the window. All that was required was that Father make a profession of Faith by reciting the Creeds of the Church. Nothing resembling a recantation was even remotely suggested.

If, in truth, this was a "reconciliation," it was a reconciliation of certain Church officials in Rome with the doctrinal position of Father Feeney, not vice versa.

As happens with liberal critics more often than not, Mr. Drummey, in his final sentence, gets his facts wrong. The largest group of Sisters, who were part of "Feeney’s community" (sic) and reside in Still River, have kept their vows of loyalty to Father Feeney’s Crusade to defend the dogmas of the Church. They are still members of Father’s Order, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and have been "regularized," not "reconciled," in the Church. They are not Benedictines. With regard to the Brothers, Mr. Drummey is correct.

To his credit, Mr. Drummey printed, in a subsequent column, a letter from one of the Sisters in the Still River community, in which she corrected him on his facts. Sister enclosed a copy of Father Lawrence A. Deery’s letter to the Priest-Secretary in the Boston Chancery which we discussed earlier (see pages 41 to 43). In this letter, Father Deery, speaking for the Bishop of Worcester, advised the Archbishop of Boston on the mind of the Holy Office regarding the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: Father Feeney was completely exonerated of any doctrinal error!

Mr. Drummey printed Father Deery’s letter without comment. We hope he and his readers read it carefully. We trust he will respect this decision of the living magisterium regarding Father Feeney, his doctrine, and his Crusade.