Author Topic: Benedictus Deus against the Feeneyites (Read 7122 times)

Sneakyticks · « **on:** May 04, 2014, 02:40:29 AM »

Cekada said:

Quote

A few weeks after I circulated Home Alone? as a pamphlet, someone sent me the following passage from Pope Pius IV’s Bull Benedictus Deus (26 January 1564). The Bull, which confirms the decrees of the Council of Trent, imposes a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication on anyone who, without the approval of the Holy See, presumes “to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council.” The reason for this prohibition, the Bull stated, was to avoid the “perversion and confusion” arising from private commentaries on and interpretations of the Tridentine decrees.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=55&catname=14

Jehanne · « **Reply #1 on:** May 04, 2014, 08:24:51 AM »

Here's the Wikipedia article on it:

Quote

Benedictus Deus is a papal bull written by Pius IV in 1564 which ratified all decrees and definitions of the Council of Trent. It maintains that the decrees of the Council of Trent can be interpreted solely by the Papal office itself; and enjoins strict obedience upon all Catholics, forbidding, under pain of excommunication, all unauthorized interpretation. This was seen by Church contemporaries of Pius IV as an attempt to strengthen the influence of the Papacy against the rise of Conciliarism exemplified by the Council of Trent itself.

There is a more minor bull written by Benedict XII in 1336.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedictus_Deus_(Pius_IV)

Your and Father Cekada's interpretation of Benedictus Deus only makes sense if dogmatic sedevacantism is, in fact, true, because if Pope Paul VI was, indeed, a valid Pope, then Father Feeney was fully reconciled to the Catholic Church through the auspices of Paul VI and received a public Mass of Christian Burial by his bishop. Therefore, "Feeneyism" can hardly be considered to be formal heresy, unless you want to say that Paul VI was not a valid Pope. And, as we have seen on this forum, dogmatic sedevacantism is no longer a viable theological option.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #2 on:** May 04, 2014, 09:18:51 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

unless you want to say that Paul VI was not a valid Pope. And, as we have seen on this forum, dogmatic sedevacantism is no longer a viable theological option.

Paul VI was not a valid Pope, and my understanding of dogmatic sedevacantism is if I declared that no one can be save unless they embrace the sedevacantism position, that is dogmatic sedevacantism.

I believe that I can not be saved if I do not embrace the sedevacantism position, because that is the only avenue that makes any sense. The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 CANON 3 says, "We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of the heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, and patronize them, are excommunicated.

I also feel, in God's Mercy, if others honestly feel as some Traditionalist do while keeping the Faith have not the grace to understand, yet, and not just because it is convenient they hold on to the R&R or other flavors of Traditionlism. God will judge them accordingly.

If these conciLIAR "popes" were heretics before their so-called elections, and heretics elected them, they were never popes to begin with according to the Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 Canon therefore no one is judging a pope.

Father Feeney could not have been reconciled as you described.

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** May 04, 2014, 04:52:58 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Cekada said:

Quote
A few weeks after I circulated Home Alone? as a pamphlet, someone sent me the following passage from Pope Pius IV’s Bull Benedictus Deus (26 January 1564). The Bull, which confirms the decrees of the Council of Trent, imposes a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication on anyone who, without the approval of the Holy See, presumes “to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council.” The reason for this prohibition, the Bull stated, was to avoid the “perversion and confusion” arising from private commentaries on and interpretations of the Tridentine decrees.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=55&catname=14

First, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience to his heretical superior Archbishop Cushing who, as one of the major modernist authorities who paved the way for V2, was preaching that via a BOD, there is salvation outside the Church.

Second, the the "Feeneyites" do not interpret Trent, they understand and preach it as it was meant to be preached and understood, i.e as Benedictus Deus dictates, "as it is written", so if anything, the title of this thread actually should read: "Benedictus Deus against all non-Feeneyites".

Quote from: The Loyolas and the Cabots

The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient.

Same tactics as used these days by the NO, and they still work astoundingly well.

Ambrose · « **Reply #4 on:** May 04, 2014, 06:13:13 PM »

The Feeneyite private interpretation of Trent is strictly forbidden, and is heretical.

Baptism of Desire, taught by the the Council of Trent is de fide. This who deny this teaching of the Catholic Faith are professing heresy.

Cantarella · « **Reply #5 on:** May 04, 2014, 06:41:15 PM »

No. There is only one Baptism for the remission of sins and that is of water. That is De fide Catholic teaching. There is not interpretation of Trent. BOD is only a theological opinion accepted for cathechumens only.

Ambrose · « **Reply #6 on:** May 04, 2014, 06:45:32 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

No. There is only one Baptism for the remission of sins and that's of water. That is De fide. BODis only a ttheological opinion and for cathechumens only.

There is only one sacrament of Baptism. But that does not exclude Baptism of Desire.

You must accept the teaching of the Council of Trent and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. If you deny Baptism of Desire, you profess a heresy. If you do so culpably, you place yourself outside the Church.

JPaul · « **Reply #7 on:** May 04, 2014, 06:58:13 PM »

There is absolutely no Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church.....but that does not exclude Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church.

Anyone who dissents from this is in heresy...........

claudel · « **Reply #8 on:** May 04, 2014, 07:03:40 PM »

Have any of you folks spotted that Sneakyticks is the latest avatar of Exurge/Pelele/Vinikias/Cathedra and several other trollish identities still undetected? Matthew keeps banning him, but because he has at least two or three CI handles at any given time, he is as hard to eliminate as basement mold on a Caribbean island.

Ambrose · « **Reply #9 on:** May 04, 2014, 08:18:15 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

There is absolutely no Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church.....but that does not exclude Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church.

Anyone who dissents from this is in heresy...........

Outside the Catholic Church means outside the Church. No one is saved outside the Church. Clear enough?

Cantarella · « **Reply #10 on:** May 04, 2014, 08:21:52 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: J.Paul
There is absolutely no Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church.....but that does not exclude Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church.

Anyone who dissents from this is in heresy...........

Outside the Catholic Church means outside the Church. No one is saved outside the Church. Clear enough?

One needs water baptism in order to be inside the Church.

Stubborn · « **Reply #11 on:** May 04, 2014, 08:22:48 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

The Feeneyite private interpretation of Trent is strictly forbidden, and is heretical.

Baptism of Desire, taught by the the Council of Trent is de fide. This who deny this teaching of the Catholic Faith are professing heresy.

There is no canon in Trent or any magisterial pronouncement anywhere proclaiming a BOD, Trent only infallibly condemns a BOD, as you've been shown umpteen times.

Novus Ordo Cushingites like yourself misinterpret Trent, then say Trent teaches a BOD - same old same old. Per Benedictus Deus, you are not permitted to interpret Trent - so I advise you to try hard as you can to not do that any more.

Trent explicitly binds us to believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation under pain of anathema.

A BOD is no sacrament at all - yet because you believe your own mis-interpretation, you consistently claim it is de fide that salvation is attained via no sacrament at all, aka a BOD.

So which is it that is de fide? Are the sacraments a necessity unto salvation as Trent teaches - or is salvation attainable with out any sacrament at all like you and Cushing and the NO teach?

Again, you're going on what, 6 months since you've been challenged to defend the sacraments and you still cannot understand why it is that you are unable to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation? FYI, because thanks to your embracing the error of a BOD, you and Cushing and all other BODers do not believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation at all, that's right, not at all - per Trent, you are anathema for clinging to this belief that salvation is attainable via no sacrament at all.

Also, while you're ignoring doing the strictly Catholic thing defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, why not already come out and admit that the excommunication of Fr. Feeney was because of disobedience to his heretical BOD preaching superiors and NOT due to his adherence to the dogma EENS.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #12 on:** May 04, 2014, 09:56:38 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose
The Feeneyite private interpretation of Trent is strictly forbidden, and is heretical.

Baptism of Desire, taught by the the Council of Trent is de fide. This who deny this teaching of the Catholic Faith are professing heresy.

There is no canon in Trent or any magisterial pronouncement anywhere proclaiming a BOD, Trent only infallibly condemns a BOD, as you've been shown umpteen times.

Novus Ordo Cushingites like yourself misinterpret Trent, then say Trent teaches a BOD - same old same old. Per Benedictus Deus, you are not permitted to interpret Trent - so I advise you to try hard as you can to not do that any more.

Trent explicitly binds us to believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation under pain of anathema.

A BOD is no sacrament at all - yet because you believe your own mis-interpretation, you consistently claim it is de fide that salvation is attained via no sacrament at all, aka a BOD.

So which is it that is de fide? Are the sacraments a necessity unto salvation as Trent teaches - or is salvation attainable with out any sacrament at all like you and Cushing and the NO teach?

Again, you're going on what, 6 months since you've been challenged to defend the sacraments and you still cannot understand why it is that you are unable to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation? FYI, because thanks to your embracing the error of a BOD, you and Cushing and all other BODers do not believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation at all, that's right, not at all - per Trent, you are anathema for clinging to this belief that salvation is attainable via no sacrament at all.

Also, while you're ignoring doing the strictly Catholic thing defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, why not already come out and admit that the excommunication of Fr. Feeney was because of disobedience to his heretical BOD preaching superiors and NOT due to his adherence to the dogma EENS.

I'd like to know what you think of recieving the sacraments from the sspx priest who believes in implicit faith, should we avoid him and stay home? Is he clearly a heretic or simply someone mistaken?

Cantarella · « **Reply #13 on:** May 04, 2014, 10:13:11 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Cantarella
No. There is only one Baptism for the remission of sins and that's of water. That is De fide. BODis only a ttheological opinion and for cathechumens only.

There is only one sacrament of Baptism. But that does not exclude Baptism of Desire.

You must accept the teaching of the Council of Trent and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. If you deny Baptism of Desire, you profess a heresy. If you do so culpably, you place yourself outside the Church.

Denying Baptism of desire is not a heresy since Baptism of Desire is not dogma. Nowehere is there an anathema attached to the denial of Baptism of "Desire". It has never been defined, nor will it ever likely be defined. The subject is still open for discussion because it belongs to the realm of theological speculation. Given the way the concept has been abused by the modernists in their denial of "Extra Eclessiam Nula Sallus", a careful re-examination on it should take place.

Ambrose · « **Reply #14 on:** May 04, 2014, 10:38:40 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Cantarella
No. There is only one Baptism for the remission of sins and that's of water. That is De fide. BODis only a ttheological opinion and for cathechumens only.

There is only one sacrament of Baptism. But that does not exclude Baptism of Desire.

You must accept the teaching of the Council of Trent and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. If you deny Baptism of Desire, you profess a heresy. If you do so culpably, you place yourself outside the Church.

Denying Baptism of desire is not a heresy since Baptism of Desire is not dogma. Nowehere is there an anathema attached to the denial of Baptism of "Desire". It has never been defined, nor will it ever likely be defined. The subject is still open for discussion because it belongs to the realm of theological speculation. Given the way the concept has been abused by the modernists in their denial of "Extra Eclessiam Nula Sallus", a careful re-examination on it should take place.

If you will not hear the Church, there is no much more I can tell you.

Baptism of Desire is de fide. To deny it is heresy. Heresy is a mortal sin and also has the effect of severing one from the body of the Church, meaning that it places one outside the Church.

When the Church reforms, the Pope and the bishops will teach this truth again clearly as they have for a very long time in Church history. I hope that you will hear the Pope and his bishops and accept Catholic teaching. Nothing is worth going to Hell for. Every day that God gives you is another day to embrace all of the Church's teaching and resist the temptation to doubt a point of Faith.

I will pray for you.