Author Topic: Baptism of Desire.. (Read 8419 times)

roscoe · « **Reply #30 on:** August 20, 2011, 02:03:46 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote
Exilenomore said:
There are Saints who where catechumens and who were martyred before having been able to receive water Baptism. The Holy Innocents, too, are in Heaven.

Daegus said: With regards to saints who were Catechumens, I haven't seen any proof that any of those people did not receive water baptism at any point in time. Just because no known text explicitly says that they did doesn't mean that they didn't.

With regards to the Holy Innocents, they were martyred before the law of baptism was ever even established and made efficacious by Christ's Passion.

The books lives of the Saints said so, with approval of the Church, so when you stand before God, better to have that backing you, instead of some Feeynite, who is outside the Church because they deny a de fide teaching.

There is no such thing as a 'Feeneyite' Myrna-- any docuмent claiming Fr Feeney was called to Rome or ex-commed because he failed to comply are Fraudulent.

roscoe · « **Reply #31 on:** August 20, 2011, 02:06:06 PM »

Quote from: Daegus

Quote from: Exilenomore
Quote from: Daegus
What is your opinion on this?

You misunderstand the context of the words of the Pope.

That doesn't really answer my question though.

St. Robert Bellarmine taught that geocentrism is de fide, and Benedict XV said that the Earth may not be the center of the Universe, which brings forward the possibility that it is wrong to believe geocentrism is de fide. If geocentrism is not de fide, then it's obvious that just because a saint says something is de fide that does not make it so. Do you agree that this is correct?

What are the exact words of St Robert concerning geocentrism?

Daegus · « **Reply #32 on:** August 20, 2011, 02:11:43 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: Daegus
Quote from: Exilenomore
Quote from: Daegus
What is your opinion on this?

You misunderstand the context of the words of the Pope.

That doesn't really answer my question though.

St. Robert Bellarmine taught that geocentrism is de fide, and Benedict XV said that the Earth may not be the center of the Universe, which brings forward the possibility that it is wrong to believe geocentrism is de fide. If geocentrism is not de fide, then it's obvious that just because a saint says something is de fide that does not make it so. Do you agree that this is correct?

What are the exact words of St Robert concerning geocentrism?

St. Robert Bellarmine, Letter to Paolo Antonio Foscarini:

Quote

“But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself [turns upon its axis] without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false

“Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding
the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if
Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries
of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue, you would
find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the
heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from
the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now
consider whether the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense
contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.”

“Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a
matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part
of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that
Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth
of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the
prophets and apostles.”

roscoe · « **Reply #33 on:** August 20, 2011, 02:48:27 PM »

What St Robert rightly objected to is Copernicus Hypothetical conception that since E rev around S then S must be fixed( & in cener of U) and not E. Science has now shown that the Sun is indeed in motion. This Does Not automatically mean that it is revolving around E-- it is going Somewhere Else. Since there was no scientific proof at the time, no one could conceive of this.

Wade Rowland( author of Galileo's Mistake) quotes St Robert as follows

" If Copernicanism were verified, then it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining Scriptures that seemed contrary and we should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say something is wrong that has been proven".

Stubborn · « **Reply #34 on:** August 20, 2011, 05:02:26 PM »

Quote from: Daegus

That really does not answer my question of whether or not you were saying baptism of desire is a dogma of the faith.

Baptism of desire is not a dogma of faith - if anything, it explicitly contradicts explicitly defined excathedra therefore binding dogma as well as Scripture.

Quote from: Daegus

You know, despite your arguments (which unfortunately don't convince me in the slightest bit), I suppose I can see why - in a way - baptism of desire could work. After all (and this just hit me), a Catholic can have their sins forgiven just by their desire to be in the friendship of God again (perfect contrition), but they still must have the intention of confessing their sins.. even if they do die an "unforeseen" death. At the same time confession is not quite the same because those able to confess are baptized.

What I'm really having trouble with is understanding just how baptism of desire could work. If natural water is a necessity of baptism, how can they be saved without it? Would God somehow slow down time (or something of the sort), have an angel minister water to the person and baptise them before death, or do you people have a different idea in mind?

While perfect contrition *can* forgive sins, nobody on this earth will ever know for sure. BOD requires it's advocates to assume it not only forgives mortal sin, but also original sin - then rewards instant salvation as well..............depending on which version of BOD one advocates.

IMO, the main foundation of BOD was built upon the "unforseen" or "accidental death" scenario which prohibited the deceased infidel from receiving Sacramental Baptism with "true and natural water" - (as though every body else already Sacramentally baptized has the ability to know before hand the date and time when they will be taken from this world) - thereby rewarding salvation to those outside the Church.

The question remains - - -if one can baptize themself with desire - why is it that one cannot baptize themself with water?

Dunno why I can't get the quote feature to work on this post.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #35 on:** August 20, 2011, 06:36:50 PM »

Quote

if one can baptize themself with desire - why is it that one cannot baptize themself with water?

One doesn't baptise themself with desire, God knows His own.

With all due respect here, I think if is PRIDEful for anyone to believe that they must know the mind of God, and why He allows things to happen in such a way to make the doubtful believer doubt Him.

The catechism teaches BOD and BOB, the catechism never states that this is a theory, it states it as fact. Read it!

Gregory I · « **Reply #36 on:** August 20, 2011, 06:54:37 PM »

I heard a good reply to the "invalidity of the docuмent/public notary argument" given by some Feeneyites.

It's by Fr. Cekada, from SGG. No friend to the Novus Ordo. He makes an EXCELLENT point:

"Q. In a letter to the editor of Latin Mass magazine (November–December 1994), Gary Potter stated that the Holy Office’s 13 February 1953 decree excommunicating the Rev. Leonard Feeney was dubious because it was “signed by no one except a mere Vatican notary.” I have also heard this argument from other supporters of Fr. Feeney. Is there anything to it?"

A. The Holy Office decree in question (Acta Apostolicae Sedis xxxxv, 100) reads as follows:

DECREE

THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEYIS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, 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.

Marius Crovini, Notary

Another supporter of Father Feeney, Thomas Mary Sennott, in his book They Fought the Good Fight, likewise hints that the effect of the decree was open to question:

It is to be noted that this docuмent does not contain the seal of the Holy Office, nor is it signed by Cardinal Pizzardo or the Holy Father. The only signature is that of a notary public. (256)

For an American, the phrase “notary public” summons up the image of the frizzy-haired, gum-chewing 18-year-old girl down at the bank who puts her notary stamp on your fishing license.

The reality here is quite a bit different. In legal systems based on Roman law, a “notary” is a type of lawyer. He does not merely witness signatures; he is trained and authorized to draw up complex legal docuмents. In the Curia, certain Notaries had the right to function in ceremonial positions of honor at the Solemn Papal Mass. (when none of them, presumably, chewed gum…)

The form of the decree against Fr. Feeney, in fact, was an oraculum vivae vocis — a legal act the pope or a Roman congregation first gives orally in an audience or a Plenary Congregation. Such an act is taken down in writing by one of the curial officials present, who afterwards puts it into an appropriate legal form.

The act is then promulgated (as a decree, decision, declaration, etc.) under the signature of a Notary, who is giving official written testimony of what he has heard in the audience or congregation. His testimony is given full faith and credit, and the act is law.

One can find a treatment of this form of legislation in various commentaries on the Code of Canon Law.

The oraculum vivae vocis is a standard form for many Roman decrees, including excommunications. For examples, see Acta Apostolicae Sedis, xii (1920), 37; xiv (1922), 379–380; xxii (1930), 517–520.

The decree excommunicating Fr. Feeney thus followed the proper legal form. The technical defects his followers allege against it on these grounds are non-existent.

(Sacerdotium 14, Spring 1995).

Daegus · « **Reply #37 on:** August 20, 2011, 07:05:05 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

I heard a good reply to the "invalidity of the docuмent/public notary argument" given by some Feeneyites.

It's by Fr. Cekada, from SGG. No friend to the Novus Ordo. He makes an EXCELLENT point:

"Q. In a letter to the editor of Latin Mass magazine (November–December 1994), Gary Potter stated that the Holy Office’s 13 February 1953 decree excommunicating the Rev. Leonard Feeney was dubious because it was “signed by no one except a mere Vatican notary.” I have also heard this argument from other supporters of Fr. Feeney. Is there anything to it?"

A. The Holy Office decree in question (Acta Apostolicae Sedis xxxxv, 100) reads as follows:

DECREE

THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEYIS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, 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.

Marius Crovini, Notary

Another supporter of Father Feeney, Thomas Mary Sennott, in his book They Fought the Good Fight, likewise hints that the effect of the decree was open to question:

It is to be noted that this docuмent does not contain the seal of the Holy Office, nor is it signed by Cardinal Pizzardo or the Holy Father. The only signature is that of a notary public. (256)

For an American, the phrase “notary public” summons up the image of the frizzy-haired, gum-chewing 18-year-old girl down at the bank who puts her notary stamp on your fishing license.

The reality here is quite a bit different. In legal systems based on Roman law, a “notary” is a type of lawyer. He does not merely witness signatures; he is trained and authorized to draw up complex legal docuмents. In the Curia, certain Notaries had the right to function in ceremonial positions of honor at the Solemn Papal Mass. (when none of them, presumably, chewed gum…)

The form of the decree against Fr. Feeney, in fact, was an oraculum vivae vocis — a legal act the pope or a Roman congregation first gives orally in an audience or a Plenary Congregation. Such an act is taken down in writing by one of the curial officials present, who afterwards puts it into an appropriate legal form.

The act is then promulgated (as a decree, decision, declaration, etc.) under the signature of a Notary, who is giving official written testimony of what he has heard in the audience or congregation. His testimony is given full faith and credit, and the act is law.

One can find a treatment of this form of legislation in various commentaries on the Code of Canon Law.

The oraculum vivae vocis is a standard form for many Roman decrees, including excommunications. For examples, see Acta Apostolicae Sedis, xii (1920), 37; xiv (1922), 379–380; xxii (1930), 517–520.

The decree excommunicating Fr. Feeney thus followed the proper legal form. The technical defects his followers allege against it on these grounds are non-existent.

(Sacerdotium 14, Spring 1995).

That's nice and all.. But who's talking about Fr. Feeney? I hardly even know who the man is at all and I know that people here have a habit of saying that anyone who doesn't agree with BoD is a "Feeneyite" (which is as ridiculous as me claiming that anyone who says women should be allowed to drive is a feminist). I have seen other threads with regards to BoD. I know how this usually works. My doubt of BoD (and just BoD alone, at no point in time have I ever denied BoB) has nothing to do with a priest who I know nothing about. Only a few seconds before making this post did I even do a google search of him to see what he looked like.

Edit: Just realized roscoe talked about Fr. Feeney. I have a habit of skipping over his posts if the first few words don't interest me.

Stubborn · « **Reply #38 on:** August 20, 2011, 07:08:29 PM »

Neither is one schismatic for echoing infallibly defined teaching.

And fwiw, about the only thing those catechisms have in common with the latest one is that they both teach pretty much the same thing on BOD.

Gregory I · « **Reply #39 on:** August 20, 2011, 07:12:05 PM »

Those who Identify themselves as Feeneyites, usually fail to apply the the following Catholic Principles:

Section I
What Principles Does the Church
Require You to Follow?

I. You must believe the teachings of both the solemn and the
universal ordinary magisterium of the Church (Vatican I).
A. General Principle:
• “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be
believed which are contained in the written word of God and in
tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a
solemn pronouncement or IN HER ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL TEACHING POWER [magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed.” Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792.— 2 —
B. The Code of Canon Law imposes the same obligation.
(Canon 1323.1)
C. Therefore, you must believe by divine and Catholic faith
those things:
1. Contained in Scripture or Tradition, AND
2. Proposed for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s
authority, either through:
a. Solemn pronouncements (by ecuмenical councils, or
popes ex cathedra) OR
b. Universal ordinary magisterium (teaching of the
bishops together with the pope, either in council, or
spread throughout the world.)
D. This is not “optional,” or “a matter of opinion.”
• It defines the object of faith — what you are obliged to believe.
• Further, it is de fide definita — an infallible, unchangeable,
solemn pronouncement.

II. You must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary
magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith
(Pius IX).
• “For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which
is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would
not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by
express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those
matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the
world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held
by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Tuas Libenter (1863),
DZ 1683.

III. You must also subject yourself to the Holy See’s doctrinal
decisions and to other forms of doctrine commonly held as
theological truths and conclusions. (Pius IX).
A. General Principle.
• “But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative
sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church
by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics
to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that
it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining
to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and
also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and
constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of
doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless
deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.
B. You must therefore adhere to the following:
1. Doctrinal decisions of Vatican Congregations (e.g., the Holy
Office).
2. Forms of doctrine held as:
a. Theological truths and conclusions.
b. So certain that opposition merits some theological
censure short of “heresy.”— 3 —

IV. You must reject these condemned positions on this issue:
A. Theologians have “obscured” the more important truths of
our faith. (Condemned by Pius VI.)
• “The proposition which asserts ‘that in these later times there
has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths
pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral
teachings of Jesus Christ,’ HERETICAL.” Auctorem Fidei (1794) DZ
1501.
B. Catholics are obliged to believe only those matters infallibly
proposed as dogmas. (Condemned by Pius IX.)
• “And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually
mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe, and condemn: and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed and condemned by all the
sons of the Catholic Church…”
“22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are
absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by
all as dogmas of the faith.” CONDEMNED PROPOSITION. Encyclical
Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864), DZ 1699, 1722.
C. Encyclicals do not demand assent, because popes are not exercising their supreme power. (Condemned by Pius XII.)
• “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do
not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these
matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which
the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and
usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine.” Humani Generis (1950), DZ
2313.

Stubborn · « **Reply #40 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:28:58 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

C. Therefore, you must believe by divine and Catholic faith
those things:
1. Contained in Scripture or Tradition, AND
2. Proposed for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s
authority, either through:
a. Solemn pronouncements (by ecuмenical councils, or
popes ex cathedra) OR
b. Universal ordinary magisterium (teaching of the
bishops together with the pope, either in council, or
spread throughout the world.)
D. This is not “optional,” or “a matter of opinion.”
• It defines the object of faith — what you are obliged to believe.
• Further, it is de fide definita — an infallible, unchangeable,
solemn pronouncement.

Herein lies the problem. Something is not right with what is written above.

One *must* believe solemn pronouncements OR the Universal Ordinary Magisterium........................well I think it is obvious that in this case there is a contradiction.

Water being an absolute necessity is solemnly defined. Metaphorical baptism is solemnly condemned. The UOM teach that BOD will save ones soul. How is BOD *not* a metaphorical baptism - and exactly who is to be believed?

Sigismund · « **Reply #41 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:32:48 PM »

Quote from: Daegus

Quote from: spouse of Jesus
You are a catechmen or have faith but are denied baptism.
One who persecutes the church comes and asks you:"Do you believe in Jesus being The Son of God?"
If you say "yes" you are killed.
If you say "no" it is a grave sin.
If you say "yes", you die unbaptized.
If you say "no", the persecutor will rejoice and God will be offended.

The dillema has no other solution expect believing in BOB or BOD.

Being that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, do you really believe God could not foresee such a thing happening and not prevent that from even happening to begin with? If someone really had faith, why would God allow that to happen, begin omniscient as He is?

So you see that your "other solution" is really not very plausible when we consider how unreasonable it is.

One of the Ugandan martyrs, St. Kizito, I believe, died in exactly this situation and was canonized for it.

Daegus · « **Reply #42 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:50:20 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: Daegus
Quote from: spouse of Jesus
You are a catechmen or have faith but are denied baptism.
One who persecutes the church comes and asks you:"Do you believe in Jesus being The Son of God?"
If you say "yes" you are killed.
If you say "no" it is a grave sin.
If you say "yes", you die unbaptized.
If you say "no", the persecutor will rejoice and God will be offended.

The dillema has no other solution expect believing in BOB or BOD.

Being that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, do you really believe God could not foresee such a thing happening and not prevent that from even happening to begin with? If someone really had faith, why would God allow that to happen, begin omniscient as He is?

So you see that your "other solution" is really not very plausible when we consider how unreasonable it is.

One of the Ugandan martyrs, St. Kizito, I believe, died in exactly this situation and was canonized for it.

Kizito may or may not be a saint, as I strongly disbelieve that Paul VI (the one who canonized him) was a true Pope and thus not capable of canonizing anyone, but there is certainly no proof that the Ugandan martyrs (among whom were Anglicans...) who were Catholic did not receive baptism prior to their death.

In fact.. here's what The St. Kizito Foundation has to say regarding the baptism of these people:

Quote

In May of 1886, King Mwanga discovered that some of his pages were Catholic. He killed one page and prohibited anyone from leaving his headquarters. Charles Lwanga, religious instructor to the pages, secretly baptized four young men, including Kizito, a cheerful 13-year-old he often protected from the king’s i9mmoral conduct.

When the baptisms were discovered, Mwanga assembled all the pages and ordered the Christians to separate from the others. They were asked if they wished to remain Christian and each replied, “Until death.” Mwanga then ordered the execution of every Catholic and Protestant living in the royal household. The martyrs were taken to Namugongo where they were imprisoned for seven days and then burned alive on June 3, 1886.

St. Kizito is the youngest of the Martyrs of Uganda who died in the Mwangan persecutions. Kizito’s martyrdom came just weeks after his baptism. Twenty-two of the Martyrs of Uganda were canonized October 18, 1964.

Unfortunately your hypothesis falls apart.

roscoe · « **Reply #43 on:** August 20, 2011, 09:10:35 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Gregory I

C. Therefore, you must believe by divine and Catholic faith
those things:
1. Contained in Scripture or Tradition, AND
2. Proposed for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s
authority, either through:
a. Solemn pronouncements (by ecuмenical councils, or
popes ex cathedra) OR
b. Universal ordinary magisterium (teaching of the
bishops together with the pope, either in council, or
spread throughout the world.)
D. This is not “optional,” or “a matter of opinion.”
• It defines the object of faith — what you are obliged to believe.
• Further, it is de fide definita — an infallible, unchangeable,
solemn pronouncement.

Herein lies the problem. Something is not right with what is written above.

One *must* believe solemn pronouncements OR the Universal Ordinary Magisterium........................well I think it is obvious that in this case there is a contradiction.

Water being an absolute necessity is solemnly defined. Metaphorical baptism is solemnly condemned. The UOM teach that BOD will save ones soul. How is BOD *not* a metaphorical baptism - and exactly who is to be believed?

MO is that something is not right with Gregory. No Catholic can be so dumb as to think( and apparently will not retract) that there is 'no evidence' that any of the claimants-- be they 3 or 11; he is not sure-- to the Papacy during GWS were actually Pope.

Gregory I · « **Reply #44 on:** August 20, 2011, 10:39:37 PM »

Roscoe: Demonstrate, beyond any rasonable doubt, that ANY Of the three papal claimants at the time of the GWS were VALIDLY elected Pope. THey all had deficient form. ALl the elections were problematic. Why should we believe that ANY were Pope? Why can we not say that the immediate successor to the last valid POpe was Pope Martin, elected at the council of Constance?

SHow me, and teach me.

THIS IS FATHER FEENEY'S ERROR:

You must reject these condemned positions on this issue:

A. Theologians have “obscured” the more important truths of
our faith. (Condemned by Pius VI.)
• “The proposition which asserts ‘that in these later times there
has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths
pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral
teachings of Jesus Christ,’ HERETICAL.” Auctorem Fidei (1794) DZ
1501.

AS we all know, Fr. Feeney believed that due to the increse in liberalism in America, that the theologians of the time, and since Trent actually, had been watering down EENS.

TO believe such a thing is HERETICAL. But, Fr. Feeney believed it. He contended that the theologians were leading the Church astray.

I was, up until recently, a fairly strong Feeneyite. Then I learned that as Catholics we are OBLIGED to submit to the COMMON TEACHING of the Churches approved theologians.

After seeing a list of 27 of them from BEFORE vatican II who taught that BOD was at LEAST a common teaching of the church (and the greater number held it to be de fide), and after learning that I cannot hold a theological conspiracy theory, what could I do?

I submit my heart to the CHURCH. Not to Fr. Feeney. Then I learned about the TYPE of excommunication he received. It is perfectly valid, because it is a specific type, of a specific form.

WHat can I say? I entrust my Faith to the Church.