Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Baptism of Desire..  (Read 10984 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Baptism of Desire..
« 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!  




Baptism of Desire..
« 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).


Baptism of Desire..
« 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.


Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Baptism of Desire..
« 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.

Baptism of Desire..
« 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.