Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotThatGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I know the Slaves and they are in FULL communion with the Church, full communion with their diocese and have the approval of their bishop who thinks highly of them.
Although founded by Fr. Feeney (60 years ago today) they were never sedevacantists and Fr. Feeney was reconciled to the Church in the early 70’s. This means he died in full communion of the Church.
Everyone is all excited about the Sisters of Mary Mother of the Church coming back to full communion so we should extend the same charity to the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The community of Slaves in NH are not out of the Church but as a religious community they are not approved.
I know Sr. Mary Catharine and she shared a lot about the Slaves as I was interested.
If you are in doubt about a community the best thing is to contact the diocese and ask. They can give you accurate information more than the internet can! 🙂
 
Why is the community of Slaves in NH not approved? (OR why isn’t the community approved?)
 
***The group of which you are speaking is approved. They hold Fr Feeney’s position and are in full communion with the Church. In fact one MAY hold this position and be in communion with the Church ***

A previous post about this issue that I made a few weeks ago should answer your questions:

Here is an article by Peter Vere, a Canon Lawyer on the matter. Vere has written for Envoy Magazine, appears in the book Suprised By Truth #3, and has written for This Rock magazine. He has also written great apologetic material againsts the Lefebvre schism.

Here he responds to a question on the matter from the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire. Now it must be noted that the group in New Hampshire is not approved by the Church. Vere simply answers the question if a Catholic in good standing may hold the same interpretation of “extra ecclesia…” as Feeney. He does not go into the Canonical standing of the group in New Hampshire, but merely the status of the individual Catholic faithful who holds this view.

catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf

Another point is that although the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire is not Canonically approved by the Church, the Saint Benedict Center in
Still River, MA in fact is. It is approved in the Diocese of Worcester.

They have religious communities of nuns and monks:

abbey.org/

saintbenedict.com/

(Note that this last website says “Saint Benedict Center in Still River is not associated or affiliated with St. Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire.” The New Hampshire one is the one that is not approved, the Still River one is.)

As you can see in this link, they are listed in the Directory page of religious orders in the Diocese of Worcester (Benedictines of Still River)

198.87.234.92/vicar/Religious…8/Default.aspx

So, what does this mean? Not only can a Catholic hold a stricter interpretation of EXTRA ECCLESIA NULLA SALUS and still be in good standing with the Church, but there is actually a religious order officially approved in the Diocese of Worcester that holds this view. I have seen many debates about this issue on these forums and by Catholic Answers apologists such as Jimmy Akin, but I have never heard anyone bring up these two facts.
 
The following excerpt is taken from this webpage (When I pasted the hyperlinks on the page were lost so go to the page if you want to see them):

http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/11/19/the-status-of-father-feeneys-doctrinal-position/


The right of his followers to defend Father Leonard Feeney’s doctrinal position has been affirmed by Church authorities. This includes our current Holy Father, while in his former capacity as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (For documentary proof of this claim, see the letters linked further down on this page.)

For the professional opinion of a competent canon lawyer on whether or not a loyal disciple of Father Leonard Feeney can be a Catholic in good standing, please see the linked PDF file of a letter from Mr. Peter Vere, J.C.L.1

Some helpful considerations on this matter are contained in the following four points:
  1. Father Feeney died in the good graces of the Church, without even the slightest ecclesiastical censure remaining upon him. He did so without having changed his position on “no salvation outside the Church.” In fact, he made no doctrinal reversals of any sort. Knowing that he maintained his dogmatic “hard line,” Church officials lifted “any censures which may have been incurred” in 1972. This is minutely documented in the books Harvard to Harvard and They Fought the Good Fight.
  2. In the Diocese of Worcester, there are three religious houses whose members believe and actively defend Father Feeney’s strict defense of “no salvation outside the Church.” Additionally, they all defend Father Feeney’s good name. Those three houses are St. Benedict’s Abbey, St. Ann’s House (the good sisters have no web site), and Saint Benedict Center. The Abbot of the Benedictine Abbey recently wrote a book defending Father Feeney, Harvard to Harvard. He remains a Benedictine Abbot — a prelate of the Catholic Church — in good standing.
  3. Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, who was one of Father Feeney’s original followers, wrote a defense of our doctrinal position in his book, They Fought the Good Fight, which was published in 1987. Besides Brother Thomas Mary’s narrative and annotations, the book has long excerpts from Father Feeney’s strongest writings on “no salvation outside the Church.” Significantly, the book bears the Imprimi potest of Bishop Timothy J. Harrington, the Bishop of Worcester. (His Excellency granted this on January 15, 1987, thus indicating that the volume is free of doctrinal or moral error.) The book is now out of print, but is available on Amazon.com (ISBN #0-9620994-0-6). Brother Thomas Mary, who is now deceased, had a web site that a friend of his now keeps on line.
  4. A well-known “Feeneyite” named Charles A. Coulombe was created Knight Commander of the Order of St. Sylvester by Pope John Paul II on 1 October, 2004. In other words, a “Feeneyite” is a Papal Knight. Mr. Coulombe is a well-traveled and brilliant scholar and historian. Along with several other books and numerous articles, he wrote a much-acclaimed history of the popes, Vicars of Christ. His lecture circuit includes Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh Universities. Mr. Coulombe spoke at Saint Benedict Center’s annual conference in 1998. His talks were entitled “Laureate of Little Towns: Fr. Feeney’s Place in Catholic Literature” and “London is a Place: Father Feeney and the Conversion of England.”
Below are links to three graphic files. They are all on letterhead from the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts. They demonstrate the cordial relations that existed between Brother Francis and His Excellency Bishop Harrington of Worcester.

First letter: From Father Lawrence A. Deery, J.C.L. to Mr. Gene Cameron. It affirms that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are “indeed very much Catholic.” Father (later Monsignor) Deery was the Judicial Vicar and the Vicar for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Worcester.

Second letter [page 1 / page 2]: Father Lawrence A. Deery, J.C.L. to Father John McCormack, then Secretary for Ministerial Personnel for the Archdiocese of Boston, in which it is explained that the community in Still River, MA (St. Ann’s House) which underwent canonical regularization, did “in no manner abandon Father Feeney’s teachings.”
1 Mr. Vere obtained his Licentiate of Canon Law from the Faculty of Canon Law at Saint Paul University. As a Catholic writer, canonist and apologist, his work has appeared in numerous Catholic publications, including Surprised by Truth 3. He is the co-author of Surprised by Canon Law: 150 Questions Catholics Ask About Canon Law and More Catholic Than the Pope. Additionally, Mr. Vere is the lecturing professor for the Masters-level course in Canon Law offered by the Catholic Distance University.
 
All of this may be technically true.

Still, I am thinking:

“Methinks she doth protest too much.” (Macbeth).

NTG, keep looking.
 
All of this may be technically true.

Still, I am thinking:

“Methinks she doth protest too much.” (Macbeth).

NTG, keep looking.
Well, when someone accuses them of being “sedevacantists” or “schismatics” I have to defend them. In a sense you can say that they have more canonical recognition in the Church than Catholic Answers does! (Of course C.A. doesn’t need it because it is a civil organization, but you get my point!)

We shouldn’t condemn a group without knowing much about them. I don’t condemn what the Church itself doesn’t condemn.

And in regards to the theological position. I am currently studying it, and it looks to me like Feeney was right. Karl Keating said a few years ago that he was going to write a book about the controversy, but to my knowledge he never did! I just think that Catholic Answers may be afraid to touch the issue, because they might find out that Feeney was right.

After all, Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. who writes for THIS ROCK, recently said Fr Feeney was right. (That coming from a Professor at a PONTIFICAL University).

I wonder if Karl Keating would debate him on the subject. That would definitely be a really good debate!

Most of the refutations of Fr Feeney amount to character assasinations. I don’t think he was a saint and I don’t agree with everything he wrote or said. But it looks to me like on the salvation outside the Church issue he was right.

Until the Church clarifies the issue with “de fide” statements about baptism and blood and baptism of desire the issue will not be settled.

If I were looking for a vocation I wouldn’t rule out this group based on the criteria that they follow Feeney’s position. I mean rule them out after finding out more about them, like maybe their spirituality or spirit is not for you, or maybe you are not called to that type of consecrated life. But don’t rule them out because they are holding a theological position that they are allowed to hold.

By your logic one should avoid the Fraternity of Saint Peter because they were associated with Monsignor Lefebvre before their approval as the FSSP.
Does that make any sense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top